# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  Entire House Of Reps Gives Standing Ovation To Cops After Killing Unarmed Mother

## green73

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlyTOSEPJGI#t=54

----------


## LibertyEagle

It seems a bit histrionic to be calling it murder.

----------


## tod evans

"Just-Us"

----------


## LibertyEagle

She rammed the White House gates and when approached backed up and sped off toward the Capitol.  I dunno, guys, I don't think this was an example of what you are saying.

----------


## tod evans

> She rammed the White House gates and when approached backed up and sped off toward the Capitol.  I dunno, guys, I don't think this was an example of what you are saying.


I've gotta question "ramming" anything..

The front of her vehicle appears pristine in the pictures I've seen...

Could it be that the histrionics are spewing from the cops mouths?

----------


## donnay

*Meet Miriam Carey, the dental assistant summarily executed by Capitol Hill police*

Connor Adams Sheets
International Business Times
Fri, 04 Oct 2013 05:06 CDT


Miriam Carey (right), is the woman identified in news reports as the shot to death in front of her daughter by Capitol Hill police on Thursday afternoon. This photo is from a newsletter announcing her having been hired as a hygenist at a Connecticut periodontics practice.


Here's what we know about Miriam Carey, the woman identified in news reports as the suspect in a shooting incident that left Capitol Hill on lockdown for a brief period Thursday afternoon, and has now reportedly been shot dead by police. 

*According to the New York Post* and the *New Haven Register* newspapers, Carey, a 34-year-old dental hygenist, was involved in the episode that began when she allegedly rammed her black Infiniti luxury sedan into a barricade near the *White House*. The incident ended when Carey led police on a high-speed car chase towards the U.S. Capitol. After repeatedly warning Carey to stop and get out of her car, the *Capitol Police* shot and killed her. 


Who wouldn't panic when confronted by trigger-happy U.S. Capitol Police with their guns drawn?

The altercation led to the U.S. Capitol being locked down for a brief period of time after shots rang out near Garfield Circle, in the vicinity of the Hart Senate Office Building. 

Carey, who has ties to both Stamford, Conn., and Brooklyn, N.Y., hails from a condominium complex in Stamford called Woodside Green, according to the Register, and was permitted to work as a hygenist in Connecticut prisons, the Post reported. 

*ABC News reported* that Carey had "a history of mental health issues." 

Source:
http://www.ibtimes.com/meet-miriam-c...photos-1414716

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> It seems a bit histrionic to be calling it murder.


I'm trying to recall cases where people killed police for driving erratically and it wasn't called 'murder'. Coming up short.

----------


## LibertyEagle

What I am saying is that we do not have all the facts yet and it looks ridiculous to be calling it MURDER in the thread title.  Just like it looks stupid to be calling everyone who doesn't agree with us 100% a neocon.

After awhile, you get the reputation of being the boy who cried wolf and no one will listen to you.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Disgusting.

----------


## donnay

*D.C. Cops Running Drill on Same Day as Capitol Shooting*
http://www.infowars.com/d-c-cops-run...itol-shooting/

----------


## donnay

> What I am saying is that we do not have all the facts yet and it looks ridiculous to be calling it MURDER in the thread title.  Just like it looks stupid to be calling everyone who doesn't agree with us 100% a neocon.
> 
> After awhile, you get the reputation of being the boy who cried wolf and no one will listen to you.



Yeah, "murder" is too lame of a word..."executed" is a better word to use.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Hostile neutralized.

Mission Accomplished.

RTB

----------


## tod evans

Shot in cold blood.

----------


## kathy88

Eliminated?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Eliminated?


Terminated.

----------


## EBounding

Did they applaud before or after they learned the woman was unarmed?

----------


## Origanalist

Hey, guns are drawn, might as well use them. Citations all around.

----------


## EBounding

The simple test to see if this was justified is to take away the badge.  If someone rammed into your house and started driving away, would you be justified in shooting the car?

----------


## DGambler

> Like I said, I wasn't there and didn't witness this event, so I can't say for sure whether there was a way for the police to stop her without killing her.  I just think it's clear that this woman was also clearly at fault for what she did.


Relativism on display.

----------


## angelatc

> This is where the car ended up. Note no damage. 
> 
> 
> 
> Car that actually hit a barrier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And away we go.

They started shooting at her as she drove away from the last picture.  Don't know if they hit her, but there is video.  And the car is damaged in the first picture - look at the fender and the door.

----------


## phill4paul

> And away we go.
> 
> They started shooting at her as she drove away from the last picture.


  Thus ensuring that there was only one way in which this incident would end.

----------


## angelatc

> Like I said, I wasn't there and didn't witness this event, so I can't say for sure whether there was a way for the police to stop her without killing her.  I just think it's clear that this woman was also clearly at fault for what she did.


I have to agree with better-dead here.  Multiple traffic violations should not be grounds for opening fire.

----------


## EBounding

> Like I said, I wasn't there and didn't witness this event, so I can't say for sure whether there was a way for the police to stop her without killing her.  I just think it's clear that this woman was also clearly at fault for what she did.



Well sure, she was guilty of driving recklessly.  Does that justify execution though?  I've been hit by a car while walking on the sidewalk (not seriously injured).  Would I have been justified to open fire on the driver?

----------


## phill4paul

> There will surely be an investigation into the shooting as there is with any officer involved shooting and ...


  ...regardless of the evidence it will be found that the Capital police "followed policy" and "acted within department guidelines" and are to be commended on their heroic actions.

----------


## KingNothing

Assuming she was completely insane, which she appears to have been, and assuming that she did ram barricades, which she actually did, and assuming she sped away, which she actually did, I do not think she should have been shot.  I don't even think police should have engaged in a high speed chase.

The police did an entirely unsafe thing and made a bad situation much worse.  They should have been smarter.

----------


## KingNothing

> *D.C. Cops Running Drill on Same Day as Capitol Shooting*
> http://www.infowars.com/d-c-cops-run...itol-shooting/


Typical.  Not that a drill was happening, or that Alex Jones YET AGAIN refuses to believe that some random thing could possibly happen, but that you post something completely worthless and stupid.

----------


## KingNothing

> So, sarcasm aside, you and LE need to answer two questions.
> 
> 1) What crime was committed?
> 
> 2) Was there a victim?  If not, can it be considered a crime?




Are you kidding me?  What crime was committed?  Really?

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

How many police chases end up with the driver being murdered? If it happened in any other city, she probably would still be alive today....albeit in jail, but still alive. Now we have a little girl who is going to grow up without a mother. Talk about a fine how do you do.

----------


## 69360

> ...regardless of the evidence it will be found that the Capital police "followed policy" and "acted within department guidelines" and are to be commended on their heroic actions.


All indications so far are that they did follow proper procedure. Have you seen any evidence otherwise?

----------


## KingNothing

> I'm not exactly sure whether the police actually had to kill this woman or if they could've stopped her without killing her.  But the idea that this woman was just some innocent victim who did nothing wrong is just ridiciulous.


I agree, for the most part.  The woman was a pile of garbage and a time-bomb waiting to explode.  The police... well... probably the same.  It's just a bad combo.

----------


## phill4paul

> All indications so far are that they did follow proper procedure. Have you seen any evidence otherwise?


  No. And that was kinda my point.

----------


## 69360

> How many police chases end up with the driver being murdered? If it happened in any other city, she probably would still be alive today....albeit in jail, but still alive. Now we have a little girl who is going to grow up without a mother. Talk about a fine how do you do.


Define chase. When you drive at a cop, it escalates to more than a chase. I believe it is attempted vehicular homicide or something like that. A car is a deadly weapon when aimed at a person on foot.

----------


## angelatc

> To be honest, I have never seen a modern vehicle 'ram' anything without sustaining significant damage before.  Perhaps the entire story is bunk?


Of course it is.  She is the mother of Obama's love child and she had to be taken out.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I agree, for the most part.  *The woman was a pile of garbage* and a time-bomb waiting to explode.  The police... well... probably the same.  It's just a bad combo.


What?  You know her?  Maybe she just let it all hang out of FaceBook?  What?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Sometimes people in the liberty movement disgust me.
> 
> While I think the standing ovation by congress was uncalled for, the actions of the police clearly were.


The actions of the police were what? Uncalled for? I agree ...




> In this day and age of IED's I'm honestly surprised the police showed so much restraint.


Go tell it to the jihadist under your bed.

----------


## KingNothing

If anything can be said to be funny about this, it's that she thought Obama was "stalking" her.  In reality, his people were just recording every phone call she ever made, logging all of her text messages, emails and internet history, and capturing on video the locations of her vehicle every day.

----------


## JK/SEA

Hard to believe there are people out there not thinking clearly...

cops love it when you cross their path not thinking clearly....

----------


## KingNothing

> What?  You know her?  Maybe she just let it all hang out of FaceBook?  What?


By every single account, she was a lunatic.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> All indications so far are that they did follow proper procedure. Have you seen any evidence otherwise?


A unarmed black mother's dead body is not evidence enough?

----------


## 69360

> A unarmed black mother's dead body is not evidence enough?


Playing the race and woman card. Nice.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What?  You know her?  Maybe she just let it all hang out of FaceBook?  What?


Some dude in a uniform said so, therefore it must be true.  Dudes in uniforms wouldn't lie.

----------


## angelatc

> The last pic the car is clearly in contact with the barrier and a cop car. Multiple eyewitnesses say she hit a cop and if you watch the video, she clearly backed up into a cop car and drove at another cop who jumped behind the barrier out of her way. None of this is up for argument, it happened.
> 
> Perhaps ram was too strong of an adjective used by the media, but she definitely put her car in contact with the barriers and a cop car. 
> 
> We need to know the motivation for her actions before rushing to judgement. But generally speaking, driving a car at cops with guns drawn is justification to fire.



Not arguing - just clarifying.  This is the second barrier she ran into.  Originally she tried to get past a "security fence" that blocks a road leading to the White House.  That's where she it the SS officer.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> By every single account, she was a lunatic.


Isn't that exactly what the establishment says about Ron Paul supporters?

----------


## angelatc

> Some dude in a uniform said so, therefore it must be true.  Dudes in uniforms wouldn't lie.



Never mind that there were several hundred witnesses, some of them taking video.

----------


## angelatc

> Playing the race and woman card. Nice.



Not to mention the Mom card.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> Playing the race and woman card. Nice.


You  left out 'mother' card that was also played.

----------


## DGambler

> I agree, for the most part.  *The woman was a pile of garbage* and a time-bomb waiting to explode.  The police... well... probably the same.  It's just a bad combo.


Really?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Never mind that there were several hundred witnesses, some of them taking video.


That she was a lunatic?  

Well, a hoard of people running towards me with guns and I'm liable to get out by any means necessary also.  I guess that makes me a lunatic too.

----------


## jllundqu

I disagree with almost everyone in this thread.

She hit a Secret Service agent with her car and tried to run over others.... the use of deadly force was justified.  If she tried to run me over, she would have gotten a .40cal hollow point to the gray matter.

If she had run over a couple kids, you would all be singing a different tune.

Cops did their job in this case, but for people who hate police and all they do (even the good cops) there is no convincing.

Proceed with the neg reps and BS replies.

----------


## KingNothing

> Some dude in a uniform said so, therefore it must be true.  Dudes in uniforms wouldn't lie.


What?  Some dude in a uniform?  Like her mother?  And her boyfriend?  WTF are you guys going on about?  Have you read nothing about this?

----------


## kahless

I am disbelief at some of the comments on RPF from long time posters. I do not think anyone here is saying she did not act inappropriately, the issue is how the police handled the situation.

They had the car surrounded and were close enough to see a woman with an infant.  She pulls away and they open fire.  That is following procedure???

Heroic my ass.  What a bunch of cowardly wimps that had to pull a gun and fire shots for not being man enough to handle a woman with an infant.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What I am saying is that we do not have all the facts yet and it looks ridiculous to be calling it MURDER in the thread title.  Just like it looks stupid to be calling everyone who doesn't agree with us 100% a neocon.
> 
> After awhile, you get the reputation of being the boy who cried wolf and no one will listen to you.


I don't know what more you need.  She got shot for driving wildly.  There was no imminent threat to anyone else's life.  If you accept those conditions, then you must also accept the term murder, since that is the definition.

----------


## KingNothing

> That she was a lunatic?  
> 
> Well, a hoard of people running towards me with guns and I'm liable to get out by any means necessary also.  I guess that makes me a lunatic too.


She thought Obama was video recording her life to broadcast it on television.  I'd say that, yes, she was a lunatic.  She considered herself a prophet and was being treated for mental illness.

----------


## fisharmor

> She thought Obama was video recording her life to broadcast it on television.  I'd say that, yes, she was a lunatic.  She considered herself a prophet and was being treated for mental illness.


Well if she's half right, doesn't that make her only half lunatic?

----------


## angelatc

I could accept these things once in a while if the reaction was one of grief, and at least a promise to examine and revamp procedures to be sure that lives were not necessarily snuffed in situations like this.

But that is not what we get.  They are quite proud of themselves for going right for the jugular.  It's psychotic.

----------


## angelatc

> She thought Obama was video recording her life to broadcast it on television.  I'd say that, yes, she was a lunatic.  She considered herself a prophet and was being treated for mental illness.



That doesn't make her a piece of garbage.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> She rammed through the barricades and was then trespassing on public property.  A vehicle can be used as a weapon.  The police didn't have any idea what this woman was going to do, if she was going to try to run over someone, if she had bombs in her car she was going to set off, etc.  She was putting other people's lives at risk.


How do you trespass on public property?  You don't shoot someone for not knowing what they are going to do.  If I were that paranoid, I would shoot everyone who exhibited even slightly strange behavior.  Self-defense doesn't mean you get to shoot people because "they might have a bomb."  They might have a lot of things, but that doesn't mean we should always assume the worst like the police do.  Even reasonable suspicion is no justification for killing someone, so why would wild conjecture be?

----------


## KingNothing

> I am disbelief at some of the comments on RPF from long time posters. I do not think anyone here is saying she did not act inappropriately, the issue is how the police handled the situation.



There are people here saying she was set up, or a patsy, or part of some vast conspiracy.  There are other people claiming she did nothing wrong and that the hundreds of witnesses are lying about what happened.  There are people here saying a whole bunch of stupid things, as usual.

There are few people stating facts - that she had a history of mental illness, broke many laws, was a danger to everyone in the area, and that in spite of these things, the police could have ended the debacle in a less awful manner.

----------


## KingNothing

> That doesn't make her a piece of garbage.


It led her to doing what she did, and doing it with a 1 year old in the car.  I'd consider that a pile of garbage.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> She thought Obama was video recording her life to broadcast it on television.  I'd say that, yes, she was a lunatic.  She considered herself a prophet and was being treated for mental illness.


She was wrong then, only her phone meta data should have been recorded by Obama team.  Unless  she had a video phone.
But you are okay with 'lunatics' like her being killed by cops for trying to escape a police checkpoint?

----------


## KingNothing

> Well if she's half right, doesn't that make her only half lunatic?


Which half was she right about?  Being a prophet, or being a reality TV star thanks to Obama?

----------


## WM_in_MO

> I disagree with almost everyone in this thread.
> 
> She hit a Secret Service agent with her car and tried to run over others.... the use of deadly force was justified.  If she tried to run me over, she would have gotten a .40cal hollow point to the gray matter.
> 
> If she had run over a couple kids, you would all be singing a different tune.
> 
> Cops did their job in this case, but for people who hate police and all they do (even the good cops) there is no convincing.
> 
> Proceed with the neg reps and BS replies.



Show some restraint. I'm not killing someone for bumping into me. Sure I'm angry, but if I'm alive i'm certainly not going to kill that person first chance I get.

That's no different from the cops shooting dogs that "charge" at them.

That's no different from cops who "Thought he had a gun"

You're using the same logic as the circular force continuum.

----------


## jllundqu

> I don't know what more you need.  She got shot for driving wildly.  There was no imminent threat to anyone else's life.  If you accept those conditions, then you must also accept the term murder, since that is the definition.


I disagree.  Basic constitutional law shows the use of deadly force was justified.  The second the woman struck the Secret Service officer it became a deadly force encounter.  The second she attempted to run over others escalated it.  When an officer is reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury (ie getting run over) the use of deadly force is called for.  See Graham V Connor, Tennesee V Garner

----------


## phill4paul

> Cops did their job in this case, but for people who hate police and all they do (*even the good cops*) there is no convincing.

----------


## angelatc

> I disagree with almost everyone in this thread.
> 
> She hit a Secret Service agent with her car and tried to run over others.... the use of deadly force was justified.  If she tried to run me over, she would have gotten a .40cal hollow point to the gray matter.


If the SS officer had been shooting at her as she was heading for him, then of course it would be justified as self-defense.  But that isn't what happened. We don't know if he fired at all.  


 The gaggle of cops in the video did not start shooting at her until after she was leaving.  That is not self defense.  If you shot someone in the back of the head, you'd be facing jail time.

----------


## angelatc

> It led her to doing what she did, and doing it with a 1 year old in the car.  I'd consider that a pile of garbage.


No, it makes her mentally ill.

----------


## KingNothing

> I disagree.  Basic constitutional law shows the use of deadly force was justified.  The second the woman struck the Secret Service officer it became a deadly force encounter.  The second she attempted to run over others escalated it.  When an officer is reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury (ie getting run over) the use of deadly force is called for.  See Graham V Connor, Tennesee V Garner


This is absolutely correct, and I still *disagree* with the use of deadly force in this instance.  It was sub-optimal, as was engaging in the high speed chase.  Innocent lives were unnecessarily put at risk while other, less dangerous, means of resolving the problem should have been pursued.

----------


## KingNothing

> No, it makes her mentally ill.


I do not care what leads a person to run someone over and involve herself in a high speed chase with a one year old in the car.  The act itself is enough to be labeled a pile of garbage

----------


## jllundqu

It's unpleasant for people in the liberty movement to admit that sometimes deadly force is NEEDED.  Could the officers have made different choices?  Yes, they could have tried stop sticks, rolling barricades, other tactics, but all the video I've seen shows a woman attempting to run over people.  It's an unfortunate incident and I don't think Congress or anyone should celebrate the killing of this troubled woman, but the police were 100% justified in their actions (in my informed opinion).

Clean shoot.

----------


## kahless

> I disagree with almost everyone in this thread.
> 
> She hit a Secret Service agent with her car and tried to run over others.... the use of deadly force was justified.  If she tried to run me over, she would have gotten a .40cal hollow point to the gray matter.
> 
> If she had run over a couple kids, you would all be singing a different tune.
> 
> Cops did their job in this case, but for people who hate police and all they do (even the good cops) there is no convincing.
> 
> Proceed with the neg reps and BS replies.


This last summer I got run over at low speed but enough where I had put myself on top of the trunk to avoid being run over underneath the car. The driver was reckless since we may eye contact when I passed behind his car but he was being aggressive. I obviously was not a happy camper nor were people that witnessed it.

At no time did I or the people around me feel I would have been justified to execute the driver.  But I suppose if I was a police officer it would have been okay?  Did not realize all I need was a badge so I can execute people on the spot without a trial.

----------


## angelatc

> I do not care what leads a person to run someone over and involve herself in a high speed chase with a one year old in the car.  The act itself is enough to be labeled a pile of garbage


For all you know she thought she had been invited to the White House, and thought she was getting a police escort.

----------


## brandon

Being psychotic doesn't necessarily make someone violent or dangerous. There must be better ways for them to handle this sort of thing.

----------


## jllundqu

> This is absolutely correct, and I still *disagree* with the use of deadly force in this instance.  It was sub-optimal, as was engaging in the high speed chase.  Innocent lives were unnecessarily put at risk while other, less dangerous, means of resolving the problem should have been pursued.


Have you seen the video of her car surrounded by people on foot and then she slams forward forcing several officers onto the curb/sidewalk and onto her hood?

That is 100% the use of deadly force.

----------


## angelatc

> It's unpleasant for people in the liberty movement to admit that sometimes deadly force is NEEDED.  Could the officers have made different choices?  Yes, they could have tried stop sticks, rolling barricades, other tactics, but all the video I've seen shows a woman attempting to run over people.  It's an unfortunate incident and I don't think Congress or anyone should celebrate the killing of this troubled woman, but the police were 100% justified in their actions (in my informed opinion).
> 
> Clean shoot.



Oh, well.  I guess we didn't realize your opinion was_ informed._

----------


## jllundqu

This is Con Law 101, people

----------


## jllundqu

> Oh, well.  I guess we didn't realize your opinion was_ informed._


Suffice it to say I'm well versed in use of force law and exactly these types of incidents.  No need to get snotty.

----------


## kathy88

> And away we go.
> 
> They started shooting at her as she drove away from the last picture.  Don't know if they hit her, but there is video.  And the car is damaged in the first picture - look at the fender and the door.


All I see is bullet holes.

----------


## WM_in_MO

> It's unpleasant for people in the liberty movement to admit that sometimes deadly force is NEEDED.  Could the officers have made different choices?  Yes, they could have tried stop sticks, rolling barricades, other tactics, but all the video I've seen shows a woman attempting to run over people.  It's an unfortunate incident and I don't think Congress or anyone should celebrate the killing of this troubled woman, but the police were 100% justified in their actions (in my informed opinion).
> 
> Clean shoot.


A car backing up and bumping in to you does not justify deadly force as a reaction.

It justifies stopping the vehicle and arresting the driver.




> This is Con Law 101, people


The Constitution is a joke and I would hope by now you realize it.

If the constitution justifies killing an unarmed person who bumped into someone with a car then count me out.

(By that logic I can murder anyone who rear ends me.)

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> This is Con Law 101, people


Con Law says that police and civilians are held to the same standard.  A civilian shooting at someone who is retreating (except for Texas, I believe) goes to prison for murder.  You may need to get a refund on that education.

----------


## jkr

> It led her to doing what she did, and doing it with a 1 year old in the car.  I'd consider that a pile of garbage.


you really dont know what the $#@! she did garbage man

----------


## jllundqu

> Con Law says that police and civilians are held to the same standard.  A civilian shooting at someone who is retreating (except for Texas, I believe) goes to prison for murder.  You may need to get a refund on that education.


Really?




> Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (USSC)(1985)-The use of deadly force to stop a fleeing felon is not justified unless it is necessary to prevent the escape, and it complies with the following requirements. The officer has to have probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

----------


## WM_in_MO

> Really?


BECAUSE THE COURTS ALWAYS GET IT RIGHT DON'T THEY.
(Fugitive slave law... Obamacare... Income tax...)

You know what? $#@! it. you're clearly one of two things:

1. A troll
2. Stupid

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Sometimes people in the liberty movement disgust me.
> 
> While I think the standing ovation by congress was uncalled for, the actions of the police clearly were.
> 
> In this day and age of IED's I'm honestly surprised the police showed so much restraint. The easily were justified in stopping her by force long before any shots were fired.
> 
> Also if the car bumped, hit, rammed a barricade or not doesn't even matter. The actions following that were what drew the police to use force.


Actions like trying to drive away?  How does that warrant the use of deadly force?

----------


## jllundqu

> Con Law says that police and civilians are held to the same standard.  A civilian shooting at someone who is retreating (except for Texas, I believe) goes to prison for murder.  You may need to get a refund on that education.


And again Gunny...




> Plakas v. Drinski, 19 F.3d 1143 (7th Cir. 1994)-If the actions of the suspect justifies the use of deadly force, the officer is not required to use less-than-lethal force before employing deadly force. The court noted that "...where deadly force is otherwise justified under the Constitution, there is no constitutional duty to use non-deadly alternatives first."

----------


## EBounding

> I disagree.  Basic constitutional law shows the use of deadly force was justified.  The second the woman struck the Secret Service officer it became a deadly force encounter.  The second she attempted to run over others escalated it.  When an officer is reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury (ie getting run over) the use of deadly force is called for.  See Graham V Connor, Tennesee V Garner


So if I get hit by a car and they drive off, I can start shooting at the driver?

----------


## angelatc

> And it's not open season...  if you don't want to get shot by police, don't ram your car into the white house, run over a secret service officer, try to run over others.


trust me - when that day comes for me, I won't be the only fatality.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Have you seen the video of her car surrounded by people on foot and then she slams forward forcing several officers onto the curb/sidewalk and onto her hood?
> 
> That is 100% the use of deadly force.


Not necessarily.  At the range that that occurred, what are the chances of anyone getting seriously injured?  Not very good, from what I can tell.  Deadly force isn't justified just by the fact that she pointed a car in their general direction and went forward.  There has to be some realistic possibility of SERIOUS injury.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This is Con Law 101, people


You flunked out, person.

----------


## fisharmor

> And it's not open season...  if you don't want  to get shot by police, don't ram your car into the white house, run over  a secret service officer, try to run over others.


"Hello, I'm a guy who believes everything I hear on TV despite there  being ample and obvious evidence to the contrary, and despite having  had it pointed out directly multiple times in the conversation.  RESPECT  MY OPINION!!!!"

----------


## jllundqu

> You flunked out, person.


Wow.... personal attacks and everything.  I would expect this from liberal retards, but ad hominem means you can't argue with logic and reason.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Funny that there is another thread on here that has some of the same characteristics. A motorist is involved in a traffic mishap. He feels threatened. He runs from those he feels are threatening his, and his child's, safety running one over in the process. 
>   What would you think had the "bikers" pulled out guns and shot him down? Justified? Standing ovation?


Needed to be re-quoted.




> The last pic the car is clearly in contact with the barrier and a cop car. Multiple eyewitnesses say she hit a cop and if you watch the video, she clearly backed up into a cop car and drove at another cop who jumped behind the barrier out of her way. None of this is up for argument, it happened.
> 
> Perhaps ram was too strong of an adjective used by the media, but she definitely put her car in contact with the barriers and a cop car. 
> 
> We need to know the motivation for her actions before rushing to judgement. But generally speaking, driving a car at cops with guns drawn is justification to fire.


She backed into the pig squad when they $#@!ing pulled guns on her. She was attempting to flee for her life.

----------


## EBounding

Let's pretend the Dear Leader's White House is just a regular house.  You have some unstable person ramming their car against your fence.  You run out to try and stop them, and the driver swipes you with the car, knocking you down.  The driver is trying to get away.  Do you have the right to shoot the fleeing driver?

----------


## angelatc

> So you think you have some kind of "natural right" to run through a barricade and terrorize people around the Capitol building?


No, but I do have the right to a jury trial before I face the firing squad.

----------


## coastie

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...kills-him.html
> 
> The story in the above link is a justifiable shooting.  The guy got pulled over for speeding.  While the cop is sitting in his cruiser, the driver gets out and starts walking up to the cop with his and behind is back.
> 
> (If you think the cop had the right to open fire at that moment, then we have nothing in common.)
> 
> The driver ignored the cop's instructions to return to his vehicle, pulled out a gun and started firing.   When the gun came out is when the cop had the right to shoot.
> 
> But because this can happen, the police claim the right to assume that it will always happen.  And thats not right.


+rep


Spot $#@!ing on! As a former LE officer, this is 100% correct.

----------


## angelatc

> How do you "stop" a vehicle where the driver won't stop and is trying to run over people?  "Just say, please pull over lady?"


They do it all the time. Stop sticks.

And stop with the "trying to run over people" nonsense. She did not intentionally drive the vehicle into a crowd of people.

----------


## Brett85

> Man the hatred for police here runs deep.  I've said my peace.  I wish the officers could have resolved the issue without resorting to use deadly force, but agree that legally it was justified.
> 
> I'm out.


Yeah, there's "hatred" for the police until people actually need them.  I suppose that all of the people here who hate the police and want to abolish them will refuse to ever accept any help from the police if they get robbed or if their daughter gets kidnapped?

----------


## Brett85

> No, but I do have the right to a jury trial before I face the firing squad.


I disagree and agree with what Rand said in his filibuster.  You don't have a right to a jury trial and the right to not be fired on if you're actually posing an imminent threat to others.  If someone is in the act of hurting others, the police can't simply refuse to use deadly force in order to make sure that the person gets tried by a jury.

----------


## EBounding

> I disagree and agree with what Rand said in his filibuster.  You don't have a right to a jury trial and the right to not be fired on if you're actually posing an imminent threat to others.  If someone is in the act of hurting others, the police can't simply refuse to use deadly force in order to make sure that the person gets tried by a jury.


So if someone hit me with a car and drove off, I would have the right to pursue and shoot them?

----------


## kathy88

> Sure they are.  Couple that with the fact that an increasing number of them are ex-military.  They are trained to view us as enemy combatants.


So you don't think it's plausible that occasionally these events ARE staged to publicize their show of force?

----------


## jllundqu

> Ok. Conspiracy theories aside. What I was getting at is that these trainings are ongoing all over. They are pumping these guys up to be these paramilitary animals. An incident occurs nearby and they always go in full out rambo mode, often injuring innocent bystanders, etc. Someone ALWAYS ends up dead. Always. My point in bringing this up is that these people are actually being trained to just kill people, because no repercussions will befall them.  They want us to be afraid.


Keep in mind that the vast majority of cops I know are waiting for the curtain to go up on this corrupt government.  Feds,military, Deputies, locals, all the guys I know are patriots and oathkeepers.  We will want them on our side when the truly evil bastards descend upon us.

----------


## tod evans

> So you think that you have some kind of legal right to run through a barricade at the Capitol and run over police officers?


Quit asking me about my legal rights, the issue here is was killing a panicked broad with a baby in the car the* "right"* thing to do.

I don't believe it was, I think the cops spooked her and then murdered her in cold blood because she had the temerity to flee from them.

All this behavior is doing is cementing the "Us-vs-Them" mentality on both sides.

This chest puffing BS is going to come to a head, some triggerhappy cop is going to kill the wrong person and it'll go off like a flash fire, it's been brewing for quite a while...

----------


## angelatc

> Oh, they'll file a report. That's about it. Everyone around here knows that the only way to recover stolen items is to peruse the pawn shops looking for your stuff.


In a lot of cities you have to go to the station to fill out the report.

----------


## Brett85

> You cannot justify shooting another under the defense of presumption.


You can justify shooting someone if they pose an imminent threat to the lives of other people.  This woman had showed that she posed an imminent threat to other's safety after she tried to run over people in her path, and actually ran over a police officer.

----------


## coastie

> I've never heard of a situation where the police didn't respond in a situation where someone called 9-1-1.  They don't have the legal authority to just ignore 9-1-1 calls.




Google "police ignore 911 calls"

About 1,540,000 results (0.34 seconds)

----------


## jllundqu

> Justified or not, there is something morally dysfunctional about anyone who applauds a death of someone else. 
> 
> A child's mother was just shot and killed. Who can stand up and clap?


+rep

Exactly

----------


## phill4paul

> In a lot of cities you have to go to the station to fill out the report.


  I did not know that. Lol. That's sure some "service" they perform there. SMFH.

----------


## angelatc

> So you don't think it's plausible that occasionally these events ARE staged to publicize their show of force?


No, I don't think they need to stage a crime to publicize their show of force.

----------


## Brett85

> Quite asking me about my legal rights, the issue here is was killing a panicked broad with a baby in the car the* "right"* thing to do.
> 
> I don't believe it was, I think the cops spooked her and then murdered her in cold blood because she had the temerity to flee from them.
> 
> All this behavior is doing is cementing the "Us-vs-Them" mentality on both sides.
> 
> This chest puffing BS is going to come to a head, some triggerhappy cop is going to kill the wrong person and it'll go off like a flash fire, it's been brewing for quite a while...


She was mentally unstable and out of control.  She started the whole incident by running through a barricade and trying to make her way to the Capitol.  This wasn't some situation that was just started by the police for no reason.

----------


## 69360

> You cannot justify shooting another under the defense of presumption.


Not, the presumption of a gun or bomb no. But based on her actions using a car as a weapon striking a cop when boxed in, it was very reasonable to assume she would do it again when she was boxed in the second time.

----------


## phill4paul

> You can justify shooting someone if they pose an imminent threat to the lives of other people.  This woman had showed that she posed an imminent threat to other's safety after she tried to run over people in her path, and actually ran over a police officer.


  I was specifically responding to yours and 69360's remarks about their not knowing whether she had a gun or bomb and whether that had a bearing on the shooting.

----------


## 69360

> I was specifically responding to yours and 69360's remarks about their not knowing whether she had a gun or bomb and whether that had a bearing on the shooting.


I never suggested she might have had a gun or bomb. I said she was using her car as a deadly weapon.

----------


## angelatc

> I've never heard of a situation where the police didn't respond in a situation where someone called 9-1-1.  They don't have the legal authority to just ignore 9-1-1 calls.


It happened to me in Clearwater, 25 years ago.  And in Detroit, the official policy is not to respond just to take a report.  Call and ask if you do not believe me. And here is a story that was posted here in another thread.




The cops have changed dramatically since we were kids.

----------


## phill4paul

> This wasn't some situation that was just started by the police for no reason.


  I don't think any here denies that her actions initiated this event. What is being questioned is if there was reason enough for police to END it as they did.

----------


## angelatc

> She was mentally unstable and out of control.  She started the whole incident by running through a barricade and trying to make her way to the Capitol.  This wasn't some situation that was just started by the police for no reason.


We do not know where she thought she was heading.

----------


## Brett85

> It happened to me in Clearwater, 25 years ago.  And in Detroit, the official policy is not to respond just to take a report.  Call and ask if you do not believe me. And here is a story that was posted here in another thread.


Ok.  So are you in favor of abolishing the police like some others here are?  I realize that the police make mistakes and that there are police abuses, and I think that certain reforms should be made to make the police more efficient and make sure that they don't infringe on the Constitutional rights of the American people.  (Like actually appointing judges that understand the Constitution.)  But I think the idea of "abolishing" the police is completely insane and not something that I would ever consider.

----------


## tod evans

> She was mentally unstable and out of control.  She started the whole incident by running through a barricade and trying to make her way to the Capitol.  This wasn't some situation that was just started by the police for no reason.


NONE of your assertions were known to officers Plewie and Plewie when they initially confronted her and spooked her.

Why focus on only her reaction to the initial threat and then speculate about where she was trying to go?

There's thousands of what-ifs that none of us will ever know the answers to...

One thing I do know though, murdering women and children has never sat well with humanity throughout history, regardless of the medias slant...

----------


## Brett85

> I don't think any here denies that her actions initiated this event. What is being questioned is if there was reason enough for police to END it as they did.


Ok, that's fair enough.  I can't know the answer to that question for sure since I wasn't there to witness the event.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I suppose that all of the people here who hate the police and want to abolish them will refuse to ever accept any help from the police if they get robbed or if their daughter gets kidnapped?





> As far as my daughter being kidnapped (god forbid), I'm not really sure what you really think your hero boys in blue are gonna do for me? I'll tell you what, next to nothing. Kidnapped children are almost NEVER found by the police, if they are ever found at all. $#@!, people were calling the police on the house where that crazy guy was recently caught with those two women slaves, and they didn't do $#@! for years, and this isn't the first time it's happened.


But ... but ... but that's NOT what happens in Hollywood movies and TV cop shows ...

----------


## phill4paul

> I never suggested she might have had a gun or bomb. I said she was using her car as a deadly weapon.


  My apologies. I responded on how I interpreted TC's post.

----------


## Brett85

> NONE of your assertions were known to officers Plewie and Plewie when they initially confronted her and spooked her.
> 
> Why focus on only her reaction to the initial threat and then speculate about where she was trying to go?
> 
> There's thousands of what-ifs that none of us will ever know the answers to...
> 
> One thing I do know though, murdering women and children has never sat well with humanity throughout history, regardless of the medias slant...


So you're saying that the police should've simply allowed her to run through the barricade and not even confronted her about it?

----------


## angelatc

> Ok.  So are you in favor of abolishing the police like some others here are?  I realize that the police make mistakes and that there are police abuses, and I think that certain reforms should be made to make the police more efficient and make sure that they don't infringe on the Constitutional rights of the American people.  (Like actually appointing judges that understand the Constitution.)  But I think the idea of "abolishing" the police is completely insane and not something that I would ever consider.


Let it suffice to say that I will never call the police ever again.

----------


## jllundqu

> I don't think any here denies that her actions initiated this event. What is being questioned is if there was reason enough for police to END it as they did.


Exactly.  A judge will look at whether the officers acted reasonably under the 4th amendment.  The facts will either show that the driver posed a threat of death or serious bodily harm to officers or civilians... or the police used excessive force and deadly force was unreasonable given the circumstances.

From what I see, legally the cops are in the clear.  Morally, I think they could have persued many other options to stop that car without incident, but I was not there and I will not judge the police or presume they 'murdered' anyone.

----------


## angelatc

> So you're saying that the police should've simply allowed her to run through the barricade and not even confronted her about it?


He is saying they should not kill people for traffic violations.

----------


## angelatc

> Exactly.  A judge .......


The government overseeing the government.  What an excellent plan!

----------


## tod evans

> So you're saying that the police should've simply allowed her to run through the barricade and not even confronted her about it?


Did I say that?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> What I am saying is that we do not have all the facts yet and it looks ridiculous to be calling it MURDER in the thread title.  *Just like it looks stupid to be calling everyone who doesn't agree with us 100% a neocon.*
> 
> After awhile, you get the reputation of being the boy who cried wolf and no one will listen to you.


or calling them a Liberal...or a Leftist....or a Libertine.

----------


## jllundqu

I think we have devolved into a debate about anarchism, minarchism, etc.

----------


## kahless

> Ok.  So are you in favor of abolishing the police like some others here are?  I realize that the police make mistakes and that there are police abuses, and I think that certain reforms should be made to make the police more efficient and make sure that they don't infringe on the Constitutional rights of the American people.  (Like actually appointing judges that understand the Constitution.)  But I think the idea of "abolishing" the police is completely insane and not something that I would ever consider.


In a free society a community should be able to freely chose whether to have or eliminate a government run police force in favor of it's citizens or groups within the community using private security firms.  I do not see how that is insane unless you favor government monopolies.

----------


## phill4paul

> Exactly.  A judge will look at whether the officers acted reasonably under the 4th amendment.  The facts will either show that the driver posed a threat of death or serious bodily harm to officers or civilians... or the police used excessive force and deadly force was unreasonable given the circumstances.
> 
> From what I see, legally the cops are in the clear.  Morally, I think they could have persued many other options to stop that car without incident, but I was not there and I will not judge the police or presume they 'murdered' anyone.


  A judge will never look upon this case unless a Prosecutor brings charges. A prosecutor will review police investigative reports ( on police ) to decide whether or not to bring charges. The house stood and cheered this incident. I am quite sure a judge will never have to rule nor a jury ever have to deliberate.

----------


## Brett85

> Did I say that?


You criticized the police for confronting and "spooking" the woman after she ran through the barricade.

----------


## jllundqu

> A judge will never look upon this case unless a Prosecutor brings charges. A prosecutor will review police investigative reports ( on police ) to decide whether or not to bring charges. The house stood and cheered this incident. I am quite sure a judge will never have to rule nor a jury ever have to deliberate.


I promise you there will be a lawsuit.  As you all have pointed out, a young, black, unarmed woman was killed by police in what may very well have been excessive force.  Civil charges are probably already being filed.

----------


## Brett85

> He is saying they should not kill people for traffic violations.


They didn't kill her immediately.  They tried to get her to pull over, she wouldn't and then ran over a police officer.  They shot at her the second time since they were afraid she would simply run over them again.  (At least from the reports.  Like I've said, I can't say that I know for sure what happened since I wasn't there to witness the event)

----------


## GregSarnowski

The police show themselves to be p*ssies as usual. They had her car stopped and blocked in. The video doesn't lie. For all you cop apologists hope for your sake you're not on the wrong end of a trigger happy pig.

----------


## EBounding

> Like 69360 said, when she was pinned the 2nd time, don't you think the police officers were afraid that she would do what she did before and try to run them over?  They also didn't know if the woman had a gun or had bombs in her car.


She wasn't pinned the first time.  She slammed into the White House barrier and then drove off, knocking an agent down.  The driver then rams into a SS vehicle and several cops get out of their cruisers, guns drawn. She backs up, flees, and the officers open fire.  She attempts a u-turn, crashes and is pinned.  The officers open fire on the pinned vehicle, killing her.  

Whether she had a gun is irrelevant, unless she was pointing one at them. If I pursued, shot and killed someone who was fleeing from me after I was hit with their car, _I_ would be arrested.  But if you are the Police, you get a standing ovation, apparently.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

This standing ovation should go to hall of fame of Congressional wisdoms  where this one is placed.

**

*About this vote*

          On Passage

*To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq*


 107th Congress 

*October 10, 2002  |  Vote 455*

 
*H J RES 114*





*Yes
*
*296
*


*No*
*133*



*        Not voting: 3
*





> Hardly a murder or police brutality. A car does become a weapon if used with malintent. The cops may have feared a car bomb. It's unfortunate *she was was mentally ill* but she could have easily killed someone else recklessly.
> 
> Cops did the right thing here IMO


Because MSM told you so? Same MSM that painted unarmed victims as "shooting  suspect" ?

Mental illness paint brushes can go in all directions. Has anyone reported what was state/medical history of all the cops involved in this incidence?



*PTSD and police: Hiring and retaining war veterans in our ranks*
www.policeone.com › Topics › Health - Physical and Mental Fitness‎
May 9, 2013 - Much of the critical reporting on PTSD has likely been an attempt to politicize the issue of veteran mental health to meet the anti-war narrative of *...**The Police PTSD Paradox | Cops Alive | Police Stress and Health ...*
www.*cops*alive.com/the-*police*-*ptsd*-paradox/‎
The Police PTSD Paradox is created when stress disables or incapacitates one of *...* The last thing an agency wants to do is bring in a mental health counselor *...**Toughing it Out: Posttraumatic Stress in Police Officers | Psychology ...*
www.psychologytoday.com/.../toughing-it-out-*posttraumatic-stress*-in-*po*...‎
Feb 9, 2013 - Without consistent psychological checkups and greater attention to police officer mental health care, PTSD and other mental health problems *...*
*Report: DEA agent made prostitute arrangement for Secret Service ...*
www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/agents-prostitution/index.html
Jan 11, 2013 - DEA agent arranged for a prostitute to have an encounter with a U.S. Secret Service Agent in Colombia, Justice Department official finds.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> NONE of your assertions were known to officers Plewie and Plewie when they initially confronted her and spooked her.
> 
> Why focus on only her reaction to the initial threat and then speculate about where she was trying to go?
> 
> There's thousands of what-ifs that none of us will ever know the answers to ...


Outta rep.

I never cease to be amazed at the veritable assload of assumptions that people make in these situations - not just about the "state of mind" or "intents & purposes" of someone confronted by the police (at any given point of time during the confrontation), but also about what the cops imagined, knew or were aware of (at any given point in time during in an extremely chaotic, fluid and very "limited information" situation). What's worse is that this is all pretty much irrelevant, anyway. It's all a bunch of "unseen forest for the trees" stuff ...

The real & fundamental problem is that police are so heavily invested in a militarized "combat mentality" and "officer safety at any price" approach that it doesn't really matter ONE DAMN BIT what the "state of mind" or "intents & purposes" or "general situational awareness" of anyone involved is.

Pretty much ALL police shootings (both justified AND unjustified) have come to be subsumed under the rubric of the "shoot first and exonerate later" policies which have become Standard Operating Procedure for law enforcement. In the face of this, arguing over whether this, that or the other particular shooting was "really justified" or not is all but irrelevant. Just about every police shooting, justified or not, is going to end up being "bleached out" in the wash. The fact that so many unjustifed police shootings (tazings, beatings, etc.) are so routinely stamped "in policy" has all but destroyed the meaningfulness of saying, "This particular shooting was justified." (You would think that this would piss off the "pro-cop" people even more than it does the "anti-cop" people. But for some reason, it doesn't seem to do so ...)

----------


## Brett85

> Is it?  Do you have some evidence to back that up?


Sure, all of the video clips of her hitting police officers with her vehicle.

----------


## fisharmor

> I promise you there will be a lawsuit.  As you all have pointed out, a young, black, unarmed woman was killed by police in what may very well have been excessive force.  Civil charges are probably already being filed.


Are you in a position to promise this?

----------


## Brett85

> Did she have any reasonable chance of inflicting serious injury on him?  From that close of a range with that kind of car, the answer is an obvious 'no.'


One of the police officers was injured after he was hit.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...s-of-gun-shots

"But B.J. Campbell tells the paper that the woman hit the gas, ramming the barricade and hitting an officer, who flipped over the hood of the car."

----------


## fisharmor

> The real & fundamental problem  is that police are so heavily invested in a militarized "combat  mentality" and "officer safety at any price" approach that it doesn't  really matter ONE DAMN BIT what the "state of mind" or "intents &  purposes" or "general situational awareness" of anyone involved is.


Thank you for pointing this out and +rep.
The real issue is that police are not trained to hem in speeding cars,
they're not trained to use stop strips,
they're not trained to look for weapons,
they're not trained to assess whether anyone has actually been hurt.

They're trained to order obeisance, and they're trained that if they don't get it, they start shooting.

Seriously,  I'm stymied as to how this isn't obvious.  This is "my head is fully  submerged in horse $#@! but I still don't smell anything" territory at  this point.

----------


## fisharmor

> "But B.J. Campbell tells the  paper that the woman hit the gas, ramming the barricade and hitting an  officer, who flipped over the hood of the car."


This was already addressed in this thread.
Eyewitness accounts do not trump visual evidence.

----------


## Brett85

...

----------


## Brett85

Eyewittnesses said that she hit the barrier.  How much damage was done to the car would depend on how fast she was going.

----------


## fisharmor

> ...


Thank you for the retraction.



> Eyewittnesses said that she hit  the barrier.  How much damage was done to the car would depend on how  fast she was going.


 My brother got hit head-on by a 1990 Crown Victoria when he was in high school.  It was going 20mph.
He did $2500 of damage to it and got only a broken tibia and fibula in exchange.

Do you contend that modern Infiniti offerings are more robust than 1990 Crown Vics?

ETA I should also add that he was only 5'6" and 160 pounds at the time.

----------


## Brett85

> My brother got hit head-on by a 1990 Crown Victoria when he was in high school.  It was going 20mph.
> He did $2500 of damage to it and got only a broken tibia and fibula in exchange.
> 
> Do you contend that modern Infiniti offerings are more robust than 1990 Crown Vics?
> 
> ETA I should also add that he was only 5'6" and 160 pounds at the time.


It depends on how fast she was going.  If she hit a barricade at 10 MPH, it probably wouldn't do much damage.  So is it your view that this whole thing was some kind of grand government conspiracy?

----------


## mczerone

One of the (many) problems with "obey or die":

With the alleged wrong-doer dead, it's IMPOSSIBLE to get all of the facts, and a civil action against the police is much less revealing than a criminal charge against the deceased would have been.

----------


## fisharmor

> It depends on how fast she was  going.  If she hit a barricade at 10 MPH, it probably wouldn't do much  damage.  So is it your view that this whole thing was some kind of grand  government conspiracy?


My view has nothing to do with it.  The evidence indicates that any  contact with the front of her vehicle was completely incidental.

Have  you ever hit a deer before?  I did, at 15-20mph, and the only reason  that car is still running is because it was in mid-leap and didn't hit  the grill.  It did $4000 of damage and died.

----------


## phill4paul

> It depends on how fast she was going.  If she hit a barricade at 10 MPH, it probably wouldn't do much damage.  So is it your view that this whole thing was some kind of *grand government conspiracy?*


  Why? Does it have to be to be considered a $#@!ed up militarized police state action/reaction?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> It depends on how fast she was going.  If she hit a barricade at 10 MPH, it probably wouldn't do much damage.  So is it your view that this whole thing was some kind of grand government conspiracy?


If she hit a barricade at 10mph, then I doubt she was trying to burst through, at least not with very much conviction.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Exactly.  A judge will look at whether the officers acted reasonably under the 4th amendment.  The facts will either show that the driver posed a threat of death or serious bodily harm to officers or civilians... or the police used excessive force and deadly force was unreasonable given the circumstances.


If this ever comes anywhere even remotely within the vicinity of a criminal court, I will eat my keyboard - and then I'll post a 'tube of me doing so in this thread as my final act before signing out from Ron Paul Forums forever ...

And make no mistake - a criminal court is exactly where this matter would end up if you and I and any other non-cops had replaced the cops in this incident (leaving everything else exactly the same - "crazy lady ramming into things" and all). Where mundanes would face "hard time" criminal proceedings, cops in the very same situations get all-but-automatic "in policy" rubber-stampings ...




> I promise you there will be a lawsuit.  [...] Civil charges are  probably already being filed.


Civil charges? Whoop-de-doo! 

"Let's try to punish innocent taxpayers for any wrongdoing that might have occurred - rather than the people who are (allegedly) actually responsible for said wrongdoing."

----------


## Brett85

> Why? Does it have to be to be considered a $#@!ed up militarized police state action/reaction?


I just asked a question because I was curious.  I wasn't accusing him of anything.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I've never heard of a situation where the police didn't respond in a situation where someone called 9-1-1.  They don't have the legal authority to just ignore 9-1-1 calls.


Are you certain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_...ct_of_Columbia




> Yeah, there's "hatred" for the police until people actually need them.  I suppose that all of the people here who hate the police and want to abolish them will refuse to ever accept any help from the police if they get robbed or if their daughter gets kidnapped?


Cops do some good things, and some bad things.  The more I read, the more I'm inclined to think the bad outweighs the good.  Keep in mind that in our hypothetical where "the police" are abolished we're really  just talking about the government police.  Voluntarily funded peace officers, competing free market police forces, and even taking action yourself in certain cases would be possible.  

I see nothing wrong with using the police while they do exist, because that's the reality we live in, while also thinking we should ultimately abolish them and replace them with something else.

And the reality is, this particular case aside, the police usually go after non-aggressors these days.  "Hate" is a strong word.  I wouldn't be that collectivist.  I'll assume the best unless I have something else to go on.  But "The best" is really just enforcing the laws on the books, which still sucks.  If cops actually had the decency not to enforce wicked laws, they'd be fired.




> I disagree and agree with what Rand said in his filibuster.  You don't have a right to a jury trial and the right to not be fired on if you're actually posing an imminent threat to others.  If someone is in the act of hurting others, the police can't simply refuse to use deadly force in order to make sure that the person gets tried by a jury.


My problem with Rand's statement is that you're talking about letting someone who is nowhere near the situation make a life or death situation.  I will never support the use of weaponized drones in any situation.  To his credit, Rand did admit that law enforcement shouldn't really have weaponized drones to begin with.

But I do agree that you don't have a right to a jury trial during the period of time in which you are actually threatening someone's life or property.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

When is Obama going to give his "That could have been my daughter" speech?

And when are Rand, Amash, and the other "constitutional" conservatives going to point out that our federal and state constitutions prohibit permanent government armies specifically because they are dangerous to the liberties of people including those who look like they could be the daughter of the President?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> When is Obama going to give his "That could have been my daughter" speech?
> 
> And when are Rand, Amash, and the other "constitutional" conservatives going to point out that our federal and state constitutions prohibit permanent government armies specifically because they are dangerous to the liberties of people including those who look like they could be the daughter of the President?


Can anyone tell me if Amash and Massie actually stood up and applauded?  Because I'd be a bit disappointed in them if that was the case.  I'm not even going to waste my time asking about Rand, I know at absolute minimum he'll pretend like the military and police are our national heroes... He's sold his soul to win the Presidency, for better or worse...

----------


## jllundqu

> If this ever comes anywhere even remotely within the vicinity of a criminal court, I will eat my keyboard - and then I'll post a 'tube of me doing so in this thread as my final act before signing out from Ron Paul Forums forever ...
> 
> And make no mistake - a criminal court is exactly where this matter would end up if you and I and any other non-cops had replaced the cops in this incident (leaving everything else exactly the same - "crazy lady ramming into things" and all). Where mundanes would face "hard time" criminal proceedings, cops in the very same situations get all-but-automatic "in policy" rubber-stampings ...
> 
> 
> 
> Civil charges? Whoop-de-doo! 
> 
> "Let's try to punish innocent taxpayers for any wrongdoing that might have occurred - rather than the people who are (allegedly) actually responsible for said wrongdoing."


You're assuming there has been "wrong doing"    I contend the evidence shows otherwise.  I think she was a threat to the public and to the officers on scene.  If facts come out that the vehicle was stopped or she exited the vehicle and was subsequently shot, then the police are guilty of homicde and should face prison.  But if the facts point to a woman who was a serious danger to everyone involved, then the police acted reasonably.

You've already judged the situation from your skewed-anti-police frame of reference.  A critical thinker would weigh the facts and reach an objective opinion without your bias.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You're assuming there has been "wrong doing"    I contend the evidence shows otherwise.  I think she was a threat to the public and to the officers on scene.  If facts come out that the vehicle was stopped or she exited the vehicle and was subsequently shot, then the police are guilty of homicde and should face prison.  But if the facts point to a woman who was a serious danger to everyone involved, then the police acted reasonably.
> 
> You've already judged the situation from your skewed-anti-police frame of reference.  A critical thinker would weigh the facts and reach an objective opinion without your bias.


Or yours.

----------


## Christian Liberty

+rep to anyone who can answer my question about Amash and Massie.

----------


## JK/SEA

How do most Police Depts. handle this type of situation in their towns?

are the perps always shot and killed?

----------


## WM_in_MO

> You're assuming there has been "wrong doing"    I contend the evidence shows otherwise.  I think she was a threat to the public and to the officers on scene.  If facts come out that the vehicle was stopped or she exited the vehicle and was subsequently shot, then the police are guilty of homicde and should face prison.  But if the facts point to a woman who was a serious danger to everyone involved, then the police acted reasonably.
> 
> You've already judged the situation from your skewed-anti-police frame of reference.  A critical thinker would weigh the facts and reach an objective opinion without your bias.


So threats to the public don't get a trial, they just get executed. Right.

----------


## Dr.3D

> How do most Police Depts. handle this type of situation in their towns?
> 
> are the perps always shot and killed?


In a little town near me, a teen was shot and killed when he attempted to drive his car toward the police who were trying to arrest him.

----------


## dillo

My problem with police is how unrestricted they are, the courts and police should not work together.  The courts should be completely impartial from the police, the police should not be allowed to have unions, nor should any public worker.  Most cops I know are good people, but power always corrupts even the most decent of man, and that power is largely unchecked in this country.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> In a little town hear me, a teen was shot and killed when he attempted to drive his car toward the police who were trying to arrest him.


Did the teen deserve to get arrested?  If not, the police are kidnappers, and any action that would be permitted against any other kidnapper (Namely, virtually ANY retaliatory force) should be permitted.

THAT is what liberty demands.  I'm guessing half the people on this forum wouldn't have the stomach for it.

----------


## jllundqu

http://www.wusa9.com/video/default.a...=2717541302001
Video at link shows her trying to run down officers.  This makes is a deadly force encounter.  Period.




> Or yours.

----------


## jllundqu

> So threats to the public don't get a trial, they just get executed. Right.


Where did I say that?  If you've read any of the posts on this thread you would see my argument.  Far too many to repeat.

This video clearly shows her trying to run down officers who are trying to LEGALLY apprehend her.  She engaged in deadly force FIRST.  Open/Shut.

http://www.wusa9.com/video/default.a...=2717541302001

----------


## EBounding

> http://www.wusa9.com/video/default.a...=2717541302001
> Video at link shows her trying to run down officers.  This makes is a deadly force encounter.  Period.


That's a video of someone fleeing.  If I started shooting someone who was fleeing after driving into my fence, I would be arrested.

----------


## 69360

> I can't even believe this is being argued about.
> 
> There was never *any* attempt to de-escalate and de-fuse this situation, like "heroes" who put themselves in harm's way to protect and serve should do.
> 
> She did not comply, immediately and totally, so they lit her ass up like an enemy hostile.
> 
> If they killed the toddler, it would have been written off as collateral damage.
> 
> Officer Safety was ensured.
> ...


I think there were chances to de-escalate it. It's not like she hit the barrier at the white house and they fired at her. When she was first boxed in she had plenty of opportunities to surrender. Even after she bashed her way out, hitting the cop car and driving at the cops, they still didn't fire. She escalated the situation, not them, she was the first to use deadly force aiming the car at the cops. 

What other way could this have been resolved? She wasn't negotiating with them and was actively targeting them with her car.

Also I don't think it is unreasonable for the cops to draw on somebody who breached a white house security barrier.

----------


## 69360

> Law enforcement is not a helping profession.  Helping professions are traditionally defined as nursing, social work, etc.  
> 
> Police do not "help" people.  They enforce the law.


That's correct, the primary job of cops is to enforce the law.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Conversation has degenerated into the clichéd "There's good cops, and there's bad cops."  It's meaningless and silly.  I could say there are good people and bad people.  That's a more comprehensive theological discussion that does not even apply here.

Were are talking here about a systemic problem.  A problem built into a system.  A mentality reinforced by police departments that are political entities making judgment calls. 

You have people with itchy trigger fingers.  You have people with no tolerance or respect for the people with whom they interact.  You have cowardly people who really have no interest in _law,_ but rather upholding the _order_ of a decaying society.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm sure Ron would've applauded if he had been in the house. He never had any problem with the police or the military.


A constitutionalist would've applauded for agents of an entirely unconstitutional agency for murdering someone?  Does not compute.

----------


## Brett85

> A constitutionalist would've applauded for agents of an entirely unconstitutional agency for murdering someone?  Does not compute.


So it's unconstitutional to have any guards around the Capitol building, or have secret service agents?

----------


## MelissaWV

Somehow I knew this thread would be here.

I've actually had a lot more good encounters with the police than bad ones.  I would absolutely support attempts to stop someone crazily driving at high speed, ramming into barricades, and endangering people.  I do have an awful lot of questions based on photos and videos I've seen.

The most famous video making the rounds is NOT from the beginning of the incident.  It is of a secondary point where she stops at a barricade, is surrounded, backs up, bumps a cop car, and takes off, eventually goes through a roundabout.  The shots were fired once she took off and headed down the street.  

1. The cops were literally a foot away.  Some of you have said they feared a car bomb.  Huh?  You fear there's a car that is being driven around with a bomb, so you get within arm's length of it?  

2. Again, the cops were literally a foot away.  No one could pop the tires, of course, or otherwise disable the car.  Nope.  They also could not block her in with their vehicles (she bumped one behind her, but there was not one blocking her exit to the street).  None of them seemed to notice there was a baby in the car, or at least I hope that's the case, because just a moment later when she drove off they started firing.

3. Who the hell discharges a weapon that many times at a vehicle in a crowded area?  There were people all over the place.  The odds of hitting the driver or a tire after she was yards away and flooring it were very slim.  

4. The car's lack of damage is strange.  I don't doubt this lady is a bit disturbed, and things look like she was there to make a statement/cause damage.  I don't think that's a death sentence.  I don't even see how you could use the word "rammed" to describe what she allegedly did to very strong pilons somewhat near the White House (if you read the stories you get the impression she was ramming the White House front gate or something).

5. Look at all of the damage caused here.  Look at it without bias, without passion.  There is a dead person, there are two injured officers, there is property damage, there are disruptions throughout Downtown, there were bystanders in danger of being shot, run over, or in car crashes, and there is one child who has lost a parent.  

The dead person was shot by the police, when her vehicle had stopped --- twice --- and could have been disabled to avoid her taking off at high speed.  

One of the officers was only injured due to his proximity to her vehicle, and she is responsible for his injuries.  Since she is dead, one could certainly say she got the bad end of that justice.  The other officer was injured because of a moving barricade.  I don't see how that would be her fault.  If he were not speeding through those streets and unaware of these barricades, he would not have been injured.  

The property damage caused by the woman was to her car, allegedly to the first barricade, to the police car at the Botanical Gardens, and to what looks like a dumpster at the end of the chase.  The property damage cased by the police was to her car, their own vehicles, to surrounding buildings (unless they hit her car with ALL of their bullets), and they share some of the blame for that dumpster at the end of the chase. 

The disruption caused by her "ramming" would have been short-lived and resulted in a momentary closing of a checkpoint.  The disruption caused by a high-speed close-quarters chase, shooting, and med-evac is much larger.  

The bystanders were not in danger of being shot by this woman, and if the police had incapacitated her vehicle they would not have been in danger of being run over by her, but she was still in control of her car.  The cops are supposed to be in control of their weapons.  

The car chase was the cops' fault; I'm not sure how anyone can argue about that aspect.  It's a judgment call but it's THEIR call.  The shots were all on the part of the police.

Lastly, please do look at the slide show.  There were fewer armed personnel around major events where many more were killed or at risk.  This was ridiculous.  There's about two dozen police/rescue in every frame.  



No charge, ma'am.  We secured the $#@! out of that woman and her attack toddler.

----------


## Brett85

> It may be that that's their intent.  I don't  want to argue intent.
> 
> But in practice, their jobs involve enforcing a system of laws that is clearly wicked and flies in the face of peace and prosperity.  It is fundamentally based on the very same doctrine of "Preemption" that America's warmongering in Iraq and Vietnam is based on.  Most of our laws are based on potential threats, not real ones.  As such, its simply immoral to enforce them, and thus, there's no way I can support the police.


I do agree with people here that the police are enforcing too many laws.  I think that the war on drugs is a complete waste of time and money and should be ended.  It causes the police to ignore violent criminals who actually cause harm to people, and instead waste time going after non violent drug offenders who cause absolutely no threat to society.  At the same time, it's the job of police officers to enforce the law, regardless of what the law is.  So I don't blame police officers for enforcing bad laws; I just blame the politicians for writing bad laws.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> That's correct, the primary job of cops is to enforce the law.


Yup.

And when the law is so stacked against you, when it is impossible to know the law, that is why you never call cops.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Real headline:

"Trigger happy cowards eradicate citizen; twisted $#@!s applaud"

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So it's unconstitutional to have any guards around the Capitol building, or have secret service agents?


1) Police are not guards.  2) I don't see anything in the Constitution about guards at all.  The S.S. was created by an act of Congress IIRC, so that's Constitutional.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> *So I don't blame police officers for enforcing bad laws*; I just blame the politicians for writing bad laws.


I do.  Law enforcement is government.  They are a political entity making judgment calls on which laws to enforce and how to enforce them.  Roadblocks are "legal," but that does not mean law enforcement should use them.  They use them all the time.  That is just as political as any law-making.

Current law enforcement is big government at its worst.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I do.  Law enforcement is government.  They are a political entity making judgment calls on which laws to enforce and how to enforce them.  Roadblocks are "legal," but that does not mean law enforcement should use them.  They use them all the time.  That is just as political as any law-making.
> 
> Current law enforcement is big government at its worst.


Good point.  Unlike the various branches of the military, cops don't swear an oath to any state or federal constitution.  They're all but above the law.

They remind me of this guy:

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I do agree with people here that the police are enforcing too many laws.  I think that the war on drugs is a complete waste of time and money and should be ended.  It causes the police to ignore violent criminals who actually cause harm to people, and instead waste time going after non violent drug offenders who cause absolutely no threat to society.


I don't think anyone here is going to disagree with this.  If they did I probably wouldn't bother to talk to them (This forum is my refuge from crap like that that I have to argue against in REAL life)



> At the same time, it's the job of police officers to enforce the law, regardless of what the law is.  So I don't blame police officers for enforcing bad laws; I just blame the politicians for writing bad laws.


I just had this argument in real life, and posted a thread on it in the religion subforum (Specifically because the argument turned to the Bible, as arguments between Christians inevitably do).  

If you're going to take this position, I have a couple questions for you:

1. How does wrong become right just because its recorded as a "law" on a piece of paper?

2. Is your position conditional on the constitiutionality of the law in question?  In other words, if a Federal agent breaks into someone's home and arrests them for using drugs, we know this is unconstitutional.  Would you still not blame the officer?

3. Were the Roman soldiers who arrested Christians in the 1st century "Just enforcing the law"?  Would you really not blame the enforcers?  If you would blame the enforcers in this extreme case, why are American police any different?  Where do you draw the line?

4. If you would defend the Roman soldiers, what about the Nazi soldiers who attacked other countries at Hitler's orders?  Would you really only blame Hitler for that?  What about the Nazi SS who locked up Jews and those who supported them?  Just enforcing the law?

At what point do you have a DUTY to refuse to enforce an unjust law?

5. What would be your reaction if an American citizen defensively killed a police officer to prevent him from enforcing an unjust law?  Let's start with drugs.  A man smokes pot, owns a rifle, isn't harming anybody.  Cops break into his house and try to arrest him.  Let's say he's being threatened with a multi-year sentence.  The man utilizes his second amendment right and uses his gun to defend himself from their aggression and kills them.  Who do you hold responsible?  Is the man responsible just because he broke the law?  Could you sentence him for murder even though all he did was defend himself?

You have some real libertarian tendencies, whereas the people who I originally had this conversation with really do not.  You're also much more reasonable and willing to debate than they are.  I'm really curious what answers you'll come up with for these.

Good luck

----------


## Christian Liberty

BTW: To be perfectly clear, I don't absolve the politicians of responsibility at all either.

----------


## 69360

> Yup.
> 
> And when the law is so stacked against you, when it is impossible to know the law, that is why you never call cops.


Yes, never call or expect the cops to help you, they won't.

----------


## Brett85

> BTW: To be perfectly clear, I don't absolve the politicians of responsibility at all either.


To be clear once again, I don't support laws that put people in prison for non violent crimes such as drug use.  However, I think a police officer enforcing a law against something like drug use is quite a bit different than the Romans arresting Christians in the 1st century.  The way I read the Bible is that we as Christians are to submit to all laws, unless those laws actually violate Biblical teachings.  I would think that verse could also apply to police officers whose job it is to enforce laws.  Even though I disagree with drug laws, there is nothing in the Bible that says it's wrong for the government to enact laws against drugs.  (In fact, I would argue that the Bible says that drug use is immoral, even though I don't think it makes sense to throw people in prison for doing things that are immoral)  But, for example, if the government passed a law mandating that every police officer go into people's homes and kill the oldest child in each home, that law would clearly violate Biblical teachings, and I think it would be wrong and immoral for the police officers to enforce that law.  If I were a police officer I would probably choose to resign if I were being forced to enforce a law like that.  As far as a federal police officer who is told to break into someone's home to arrest them for doing drugs, the police officer should either do what he's told and follow that order, or he should resign.  If I were in that situation, I would resign.  But refusing to follow that order wouldn't really be an option if you wanted to actually keep your job, which is something that certain people might have to do if they want to feed their family.  They would be fired if they refused to enforce the law.  I would say that it's not justified to kill a police officer who enters your home to arrest you, unless the police officer actually fires on you first.  In that case it would simply be an act of self defense to use force against the police officer.

----------


## phill4paul

> I don't see how it was "cop worship."  He said in the article that there are bad cops who do bad things.  I agree.  I'm also not a cop worshipper.  There are certainly cops who do bad things and deserve to be called out on it.  I've seen a lot of stories where cops abuse their power, and it's terrible to see.  I certainly will criticize any police officer who abuses his or her power and takes away life, liberty, and property from the American people.  But in this particular case, the police officers were simply doing their jobs, and generally speaking I think that the majority of police officers simply want to serve their community help the people of their community.


  From the article:




> We can't Monday-morning quarterback the officers based on information that comes out later. We can only look at what a reasonable officer knew or should have known, and did or should have done, in a given situation.


  Nope we mundanes should never "Monday morning quarterback." Best to leave it to the professionals to police the professionals.




> And let's also consider facts, not emotional spin. Even though at first blush it appears to be a justified shooting, there should be no rush to final judgment in either direction before an examination of the facts in a fair and impartial investigation. As Lanier indicated in her press conference Thursday night, the Metropolitan Police will be investigating, with support from the Capitol Police and Secret Service.


  The emotional spin comes from a government body applauding the shooting of the citizen. And the cops backing up cops. Funny how someone that is arrested get's THEIR face and name printed in the newz before there is a "fair and impartial investigation." I'm 100% sure things will check out and the narrative not only exonerate but praise these brave individuals.




> In the wake of last month's Naval Yard shooting, and with the specter of other past violent acts -- such as the shooting of two heroic U.S. Capitol Police officers by a man who breached security in July 1998 -- law enforcement in Washington has been on heightened alert.


  Boogity-boogity and heroics. Well, then, seems like a wash to me.




> Cars can be used for delivering explosive devices.


  Yeah, but it wasn't. We shot human beings in their vehicles in the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. Is this the new justification on the streets of America?

   Donkey-drool.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> To be clear once again, I don't support laws that put people in prison for non violent crimes such as drug use.  However, I think a police officer enforcing a law against something like drug use is quite a bit different than the Romans arresting Christians in the 1st century.  The way I read the Bible is that we as Christians are to submit to all laws, unless those laws actually violate Biblical teachings.  I would think that verse could also apply to police officers whose job it is to enforce laws.  Even though I disagree with drug laws, there is nothing in the Bible that says it's wrong for the government to enact laws against drugs.  (In fact, I would argue that the Bible says that drug use is immoral, even though I don't think it makes sense to throw people in prison for doing things that are immoral)  But, for example, if the government passed a law mandating that every police officer go into people's homes and kill the oldest child in each home, that law would clearly violate Biblical teachings, and I think it would be wrong and immoral for the police officers to enforce that law.  If I were a police officer I would probably choose to resign if I were being forced to enforce a law like that.  As far as a federal police officer who is told to break into someone's home to arrest them for doing drugs, the police officer should either do what he's told and follow that order, or he should resign.  If I were in that situation, I would resign.  But refusing to follow that order wouldn't really be an option if you wanted to actually keep your job, which is something that certain people might have to do if they want to feed their family.  They would be fired if they refused to enforce the law.  I would say that it's not justified to kill a police officer who enters your home to arrest you, unless the police officer actually fires on you first.  In that case it would simply be an act of self defense to use force against the police officer.


Can you explain where you draw that line (As to what laws would and would not be morally acceptable to enforce) and why?

Would your stance on firing on the police be any different if it was a "mundane" who broke into the person's house?

Do you disagree with Chuck Baldwin on the unjust laws issue?  Because I thought you agreed with Baldwin, and Baldwin definitely doesn't support an interpretation of Romans 13 that says we should obey any law that doesn't directly contradict the Bible.  

I agree with you that drugs are generally immoral, although I'm not sure if that's the case for marijuana, because I really don't know what effects it has.  Smoking a cigarette isn't exactly healthy or wise, but I wouldn't necessarily call it "immoral" so I presume the same would apply for marijuana.  On the other hand, if its something that makes you lose your judgment (like getting drunk) than it would clearly be immoral but should still not be illegal.  And yes, I understand that you agree with me on that.  Where we disagree is the moral culpability of the enforcers, not the laws themselves.

----------


## phill4paul

> I think there were chances to de-escalate it. It's not like she hit the barrier at the white house and they fired at her. When she was first boxed in she had plenty of opportunities to surrender. Even after she bashed her way out, hitting the cop car and driving at the cops, they still didn't fire. She escalated the situation, not them, she was the first to use deadly force aiming the car at the cops. 
> 
> What other way could this have been resolved? She wasn't negotiating with them and was actively targeting them with her car.
> 
> Also I don't think it is unreasonable for the cops to draw on somebody who breached a white house security barrier.


  She wasn't "actively" targeting them. Stop that meme $#@!. If she had there would have been many more killed or hospitalized. Stop you bull$#@! meme!

----------


## MelissaWV

> She wasn't "actively" targeting them. Stop that meme $#@!. If she had there would have been many more killed or hospitalized. Stop you bull$#@! meme!


She also didn't "breach" a barrier.  I am dismayed by how often I heard this repeated.  Most people at work who discussed it were under the impression she was storming the big gates in front of the White House and then sped off towards the Capitol Building while people barely jumped out of the way.

----------


## Brett85

> Can you explain where you draw that line (As to what laws would and would not be morally acceptable to enforce) and why?
> 
> Would your stance on firing on the police be any different if it was a "mundane" who broke into the person's house?
> 
> Do you disagree with Chuck Baldwin on the unjust laws issue?  Because I thought you agreed with Baldwin, and Baldwin definitely doesn't support an interpretation of Romans 13 that says we should obey any law that doesn't directly contradict the Bible.  
> 
> I agree with you that drugs are generally immoral, although I'm not sure if that's the case for marijuana, because I really don't know what effects it has.  Smoking a cigarette isn't exactly healthy or wise, but I wouldn't necessarily call it "immoral" so I presume the same would apply for marijuana.  On the other hand, if its something that makes you lose your judgment (like getting drunk) than it would clearly be immoral but should still not be illegal.  And yes, I understand that you agree with me on that.  Where we disagree is the moral culpability of the enforcers, not the laws themselves.


I guess I would have to read Baldwin's book to know for sure how exactly he interprets Romans 13.  Like I said, it seems clear to me that the Bible says to submit to the governing authorities.  The only exception I see to that in the Bible is if the law in question violates Biblical principles.  I'm not going to try to read things into the Bible that aren't actually there.  Yes, it's different if a police officer comes into your home to arrest you then if someone breaks into your home to rob you.  You have the legal right to kill a regular citizen who breaks into your home to kill you.  You don't have the legal right to kill a police officer who comes into your home to arrest you.  I think the Bible makes it clear that we are to submit to the governing authorities.  Christ also preached a message of peace and love when he was here on earth.  I think it would be different from a Biblical perspective if a police officer came into a Christian's home to arrest him or her for the sole reason that that person is a Christian.  In that situation the police officer would be violating Biblical laws, and it would be moral for a Christian to defend himself or herself by using force.

----------


## 69360

> She wasn't "actively" targeting them. Stop that meme $#@!. If she had there would have been many more killed or hospitalized. Stop you bull$#@! meme!


I watched the video of her driving her car at cops and them jumping the barrier to get out of her way. Did you?

----------


## donnay

*Raw DC Police Car Slams Into Barriers At Capitol Hill !!* 






MSM silent.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I guess I would have to read Baldwin's book to know for sure how exactly he interprets Romans 13.


For the record, I don't agree with Baldwin either.  I agree with erowe1 and what he says here




> Like I said, it seems clear to me that the Bible says to submit to the governing authorities.  The only exception I see to that in the Bible is if the law in question violates Biblical principles.


Yet this exception never appears in any of the passages that say to obey.  Romans 13 has an obvious context in a book that is about predestination (I believe erowe1 articulates this view better than I can, so read the link I quoted above), and 1 Peter 2 has an obvious context of "So that the unbelieving world doesn't see Christians as seditious" going on, and there is a case where Peter is clearly justified when he says "We have to obey God rather than man" but there is no case where you'll actually see "Obey the government, unless it contradicts God's law" mentioned.  And speaking of which, how is aggressing against the innocent NOT a violation of God's will?




> I'm not going to try to read things into the Bible that aren't actually there.  Yes, it's different if a police officer comes into your home to arrest you then if someone breaks into your home to rob you.  You have the legal right to kill a regular citizen who breaks into your home to kill you.  You don't have the legal right to kill a police officer who comes into your home to arrest you.


So morality comes from the State?  to make this claim is to deify the State.



> I think the Bible makes it clear that we are to submit to the governing authorities.


But which ones, when, and why?  The Bible really doesn't answer these questions as clearly as you might think.  At least not in any passage I'm aware of.


> Christ also preached a message of peace and love when he was here on earth.  I think it would be different from a Biblical perspective if a police officer came into a Christian's home to arrest him or her for the sole reason that that person is a Christian.  In that situation the police officer would be violating Biblical laws, and it would be moral for a Christian to defend himself or herself by using force.


I'm not even necessarily saying a Christian should use deadly force in that or any other situation.  I honestly don't know.  The Apostles didn't fight back, so I think there's a case to be made that serious Christians shouldn't either, but again, I'm really not sure.

What I don't see is any kind of scripture that puts government on a different standard than everyone else.  By contrast, God is not a respecter of persons.  So what's wrong for us is wrong for them.  For a government agent to aggress against an innocent person is clearly wrong.  Its also clear, at least to me, that laws should never be enforced against those who defend themselves or their property from aggressors, even if it is illegal for them to do so.

BTW: Chuck Baldwin does argue that the "higher power" would be the Constitution in our case, not the US Federal Government.  IF Romans 13 was actually teaching to submit to anything as a moral dictate rather than a pragmatic one, I would agree with Baldwin that the Constitution is the "higher power" in this country.

----------


## MelissaWV

> *Raw DC Police Car Slams Into Barriers At Capitol Hill !!* 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSM silent.


THANK YOU!!!! I knew pretty much where that was, but hadn't been able to find video.  Yep.  Those things will $#@! you up.  Badly.  And they are there to PREVENT PEOPLE FROM PASSING, particularly at dangerous speed.

Most importantly, do you see all of the tourists in the area, including that trolley?  That cop was going insanely fast.  Oh but SHE was the danger...

----------


## Brett85

> And speaking of which, how is aggressing against the innocent NOT a violation of God's will?


Maybe it is; Christians have different interpretations of the Bible and different interpretations of what God's will and God's law actually is.  But, I don't really see anywhere in the Bible that says that it's God's will for the government to allow people to use drugs.  I think the war on drugs should be ended because it's so costly for society and actually distracts us from going after violent criminals.  But, the Bible says absolutely nothing about what role the government should have in something like drug enforcement.

----------


## Brett85

And also, we're making this thread go way off topic.

----------


## phill4paul

I would like to point out that at the time of the shooting she had nowhere to run. A barricade was erected behind her, destroyiing a cop car, and she was forced to turn around after another set of barricades were erected in front of her. At this point she had no where to go. Especially after getting stuck on the median.......

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Maybe it is; Christians have different interpretations of the Bible and different interpretations of what God's will and God's law actually is.  But, I don't really see anywhere in the Bible that says that it's God's will for the government to allow people to use drugs.  I think the war on drugs should be ended because it's so costly for society and actually distracts us from going after violent criminals.  But, the Bible says absolutely nothing about what role the government should have in something like drug enforcement.


There's no verse that straight up and out says so.  But I think a combination of things can prove that it is against God's will.

First of all, there is no such law in the Old Testament.  And while I certainly think it is acceptable, even necessary, for law enforcement not to enforce every Old Testament Law, I think it flies in the face of Christ's mercy to suggest that we should actually enforce a law in the New Covenant that was never enforced in the Old.

Second of all, 1 Corinthians 5:11-12 says that Christians should focus on judging those in the church and not the person outside, as well as 1 Peter 4:15 saying that Christians shouldn't be busybodies.  The typical response to this is that it only applies to laypeople, not law enforcement.  But its absurd, because the Bible says God is not a respecter of persons (Just go into Biblegateway.com and type that phrase in, it will show up a number of places.)  And that clearly isn't talking about man's standing before God in salvation, because the Bible is clear that when it comes to that, God does choose some and reject others.

1 Corinthians 6 is also pretty explicitly anti-state, at least as clearly so as Romans 13 is pro-state.




> And also, we're making this thread go way off topic.


Meh, this topic was dead anyway

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Yup.
> 
> And when the law is so stacked against you, when it is impossible to know the law, that is why you never call cops.


I just went to the uscode.house.gov website and found a download for the current US Code.  The PLAIN TEXT of the US Code unzips to 286MB

That adds up to 2,399,141,888 bits.  An ASCII Character is 1 byte (8 bits) so including spaces you are looking at 299,892,736 characters.  That amounts to about 66,642,830 words, and given that the average novel has 64,000 words, US Code is the equivalent of 1041 novels.

And worst of all, by the time you are 10% of the way through it, it's already changed.  

You are correct, it's literally _impossible_ to know the law.

----------


## phill4paul

> I watched the video of her driving her car at cops and them jumping the barrier to get out of her way. Did you?


  I witnessed her trying to extricate herself from a situation that, possibly for mental reasons, she did not feel safe in. If she had wanted to run over cops, or anyone else, there were plenty of opportunities.

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

GESUS, Keystone Kops! Endangering not only themselves but all those civilians in the path of that flying Cop Car. Then all the bull$#@! of disinformation by the same Capital Police department on White House rammed by suspects. My Oh My... $#@!in Idiots from beginning to the tragic end.


> *Raw DC Police Car Slams Into Barriers At Capitol Hill !!* 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSM silent.

----------


## phill4paul

> I just went to the uscode.house.gov website and found a download for the current US Code.  The PLAIN TEXT of the US Code unzips to 286MB
> 
> That adds up to 2,399,141,888 bits.  An ASCII Character is 1 byte (8 bits) so including spaces you are looking at 299,892,736 characters.  That amounts to about 66,642,830 words, and given that the average novel has 64,000 words, US Code is the equivalent of 1041 novels.
> 
> And worst of all, by the time you are 10% of the way through it, it's already changed.  
> 
> You are correct, it's literally _impossible_ to know the law.


  Wow. Great breakdown, Glen.

----------


## Brett85

> I witnessed her trying to extricate herself from a situation that, possibly for mental reasons, she did not feel safe in. If she had wanted to run over cops, or anyone else, there were plenty of opportunities.


She did run over a cop.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> *Raw DC Police Car Slams Into Barriers At Capitol Hill !!* 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSM silent.


Ha!  Cute accent.   Reminds me of Woody Harrelson's girlfriends accent in White Men Can't Jump.  Rosie Perez.

----------


## MelissaWV

> She did run over a cop.


Strangely I have yet to hear too many details on that.  When did she do that?  It's possible she did so during the main video that's been shown, when she drives away from being surrounded (there are trees in the way) or at the first checkpoint, but I have not heard a whole lot about it.  Most of the focus, at first, was on how she destroyed that police car that we later found out destroyed itself by running over the hidden barriers as they were being deployed.

----------


## tod evans

> She did run over a cop.


Stop embellishing TC, there's no squished cops.

----------


## phill4paul

> How long can a car run on gasoline/petrol without refueling? Did she have a gun or knife ??


  She had nowhere to run. Barriers were erected on the road in front and behind her. Her car had lodged itself in a median. She had no gun. No word regarding a knife.

----------


## MelissaWV

Another write up focuses on the initial confrontation, but is also conflicting:



> A woman with a young child was shot to death after turning her vehicle into a weapon on Thursday afternoon, *ramming her way through barriers* outside the White House and on Capitol Hill. 
> 
> ...
> 
> The chase began at 2:12 p.m. when Ms. Carey, who was driving a black two-door Infiniti with Connecticut plates, *tried to ram* through a White House checkpoint at 15th and E Streets Northwest. “The guys ran to try to stop her, and she wasn’t going to slow down, so they jumped aside,” said B. J. Campbell, a tourist from Portland, Ore., who was standing near the White House. “One of the guys grabbed one of those *little metal fence sections and shoved it in front of her*, across the driveway. She hit the brakes slightly and tried to get around it on the right, but the guy shoved it in front of her again, to try to keep her in.” 
> 
> Mr. Campbell said the woman “hit the gas, ran over the barricade” and hit the officer, who flipped onto the hood of the car and “rolled off into the gutter.” 
> 
> “After she ran him down, she gunned it, and she just went screaming down Pennsylvania Avenue,” he said. “They were busy calling on their phones, on the radios. It was like poking a hornet nest. There were guys everywhere. I didn’t see anyone with their guns out, but they were sure busy.” 
> ...

----------


## phill4paul

> She did run over a cop.


  During the beginning instances. She hit an outlying barricade. A police officer attempted to place a movable barricade in front of her car and she proceeded forward through it and him. This is what I understand from the reports I have read. 
  After that then I have not heard other than the police officer that collided with the pneumatic street barriers.

----------


## tod evans

> During the beginning instances. She hit an outlying barricade. A police officer attempted to place a movable barricade in front of her car and she proceeded forward through it and him. This is what I understand from the reports I have read. 
>   After that then I have not heard other than the police officer that collided with the pneumatic street barriers.


So she gently nudged an offensive hostile out of her path..

Nobody was "run over"...

----------


## MelissaWV

You can't expect cops to safely shoot the tires out from this distance.

----------


## MelissaWV

Actually I think this particular photo sums up everything:



Who are these people hiding from?  A lady in a car?  Or are they ducking down due to GUNSHOTS in the area?  Whose guns were shooting?  Hmm.

----------


## phill4paul

> You can't expect cops to safely shoot the tires out from this distance.


  I'm outta bullets. Someone give this lady a rep shot please.

----------


## donnay

> I'm outta bullets. Someone give this lady a rep shot please.


Gotcha covered.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

LA Times:
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill used Thursday’s incident to press for an  agreement to end the government shutdown, noting that the Capitol police  who responded are not being paid.
*“Today we are wearing buttons that say thank you to the Capitol Police,’’*  said Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.). "This is a nice gesture, but we  should also think about the hypocrisy of this. It is time for the United  States Congress  to not just pass out buttons saying thank you, but  pass out paychecks  to the Capitol Police officers who are protecting us  and not getting  paid during this shutdown."’

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nation...482,full.story

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You can't expect cops to safely shoot the tires out from this distance.


damnit!  




> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MelissaWV again.

----------


## MelissaWV

> LA Times:
> Lawmakers on Capitol Hill used Thursday’s incident to press for an  agreement to end the government shutdown, noting that the Capitol police  who responded are not being paid.
> *“Today we are wearing buttons that say thank you to the Capitol Police,’’*  said Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.). "This is a nice gesture, but we  should also think about the hypocrisy of this. It is time for the United  States Congress  to not just pass out buttons saying thank you, but  pass out paychecks  to the Capitol Police officers who are protecting us  and not getting  paid during this shutdown."’
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/nation/nation...482,full.story


Economic stimulus.  Button-printers got a large rush order.

----------


## phill4paul

> Economic stimulus.  Button-printers got a large rush order.


 Where can I get one? They're kewl.

----------


## Origanalist

> damnit!


I got that one.

----------


## Origanalist

People are still trying to justify this here? I just got back from work, That's really disturbing.

----------


## EBounding

> That's a video of someone engaged in deadly force against police, resisting arrest, and a few other felonies.  There are other facts/circumstances in the case, but this one video shows clearly she was a deadly threat to those involved.


I think you're missing my main point.  The point I'm trying to make is that if you took away the badges, the shooters (cops) would have been arrested for their actions.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Which is why we're $#@!ed.  It's going to take something or someone extreme to roll all of that back.


Yup.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And, brother, that is *just* the US Code, Annotated.
> 
> There are literally *millions* of lines of CFRs (Codes of Federal Regulations - this is what EPA and OSHA and DEA and DOT and all the rest write with force of law) regulating every damn thing from 787s to raising minks for fur.
> 
> And that's just at the federal level.
> 
> There are millions more at the global level and millions more at the state, county and local level.


Think of it as stimulus for attorneys, cops, D.A.'s, judges, etc.  But you're going to need to speak up a bit.  I can't hear you over all this $#@!ing freedom.

----------


## Brett85

> I didn't watch the video. I don't like leaving the house in a rage...
> 
> I'm just a little surprised that there are people *here* that are still trying to justify this insanity.


Not everyone here is,

1)  An anarchist
2)  Hates the police
3)  Wants to abolish the police

Ron Paul never held any of those views.  Really, almost all of the political views I advocate are exactly the same as Ron Paul's views.  Everyone else has gone off the reservation into anarchy.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Not everyone here is,
> 
> 1)  An anarchist
> 2)  Hates the police
> 3)  Wants to abolish the police
> 
> Ron Paul never held any of those views.  Really, almost all of the political views I advocate are exactly the same as Ron Paul's views.  Everyone else has gone off the reservation into anarchy.


Ron Paul is a great man, but he isn't God.  I don't have to agree with every word he says. 

That said, while we'd probably disagree on a few issues, I think our biggest difference is in style, not substance.  I think Ron Paul believes close to the same things as me, but he wants to do it more gradually, and is nicer about it.  I have more of a tendency to want to do everything as quickly as possible, and am much more apt to expose our enemies for what they really are.

Ron Paul might not use the same style as Laurence Vance does when talking about the military, or Will Grigg when talking about police, but I doubt he'd actually disagree either.  He just has a softer tone.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Not everyone here is,
> 
> 1)  An anarchist
> 2)  Hates the police
> 3)  Wants to abolish the police
> 
> Ron Paul never held any of those views.  Really, almost all of the political views I advocate are exactly the same as Ron Paul's views.  Everyone else has gone off the reservation into anarchy.


Forced lockdown of a city. Militarized police riding tanks in the streets. Door-to-door armed searches without warrant. Families thrown out of their homes at gunpoint to be searched without probable cause. Businesses forced to close. Transport shut down.

These were not the scenes from a military coup in a far off banana republic, but rather the scenes just over a week ago in Boston as the United States got a taste of martial law. The ostensible reason for the military-style takeover of parts of Boston was that the accused perpetrator of a horrific crime was on the loose. The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city. This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself.

Ron Paul - April 2013

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul858.html

----------


## Brett85

> Forced lockdown of a city. Militarized police riding tanks in the streets. Door-to-door armed searches without warrant. Families thrown out of their homes at gunpoint to be searched without probable cause. Businesses forced to close. Transport shut down.
> 
> These were not the scenes from a military coup in a far off banana republic, but rather the scenes just over a week ago in Boston as the United States got a taste of martial law. The ostensible reason for the military-style takeover of parts of Boston was that the accused perpetrator of a horrific crime was on the loose. The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city. This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself.
> 
> Ron Paul - April 2013
> 
> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul858.html


Yeah, that's true.  But he never advocated abolishing the police.  And he hasn't commented on this particular event.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Think of it as stimulus for attorneys, cops, D.A.'s, judges, etc.  But you're going to need to speak up a bit.  I can't hear you over all this $#@!ing freedom.


Especially as the surveillance state cranks up even more.

The "I've got nothing to hide" crowd is in for a rude awakening.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Technically, the most efficient way to get rid of the CFRs is what Ron proposed: replace the agencies with nothing.  If there is no more EPA, then EPA regulations are moot.


A little optimistic, perhaps.

Some other presidency will "delegate" the "responsibility" of [selectively] enforcing the "law" to whatever agency is left. Hell, local police if need be.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Yeah, that's true.  But he never advocated abolishing the police.  And he hasn't commented on this particular event.


What makes you think he would respond any different when this was an unarmed woman with an infant child in the car?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Not everyone here is,
> 
> 1)  An anarchist
> 2)  Hates the police
> 3)  Wants to abolish the police
> *
> Ron Paul never held any of those views*.  Really, almost all of the political views I advocate are exactly the same as Ron Paul's views.  Everyone else has gone off the reservation into anarchy.


If you and RP want to be consistent constitutionalists, you would want to abolish police.  There's nothing in the constitution or any of the founders' writings about government police.  There are plenty of warnings against standing armies though-which is what the police are in practice.

i.e.-
"Our duty, therefore, is to act upon things as they are, and to make reasonable provision for whatever they may be. Were armies to be raised whenever a speck of war is visible in our horizon, we never should have been without them. Our resources would have been exhausted on dangers which have never happened, instead of being reserved for what is really to take place."
*Thomas Jefferson, The Sixth Annual Message, 1806, 549

*

----------


## Brett85

> What makes you think he would respond any different when this was an unarmed woman with an infant child in the car?


1) If criticizing the police who were involved in this incident is so foundational to liberty, why hasn't Ron commented on it on Facebook or his twitter account?
2)  The police had absolutely no way of knowing that the woman was unarmed or had a baby in the car.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Cops *are* that standing army.




> If you and RP want to be consistent constitutionalists, you would want to abolish police.  There's nothing in the constitution or any of the founders' writings about government police.  There are plenty of warnings against standing armies though-which is what the police are in practice.
> 
> i.e.-
> "Our duty, therefore, is to act upon things as they are, and to make reasonable provision for whatever they may be. Were armies to be raised whenever a speck of war is visible in our horizon, we never should have been without them. Our resources would have been exhausted on dangers which have never happened, instead of being reserved for what is really to take place."
> *Thomas Jefferson, The Sixth Annual Message, 1806, 549
> 
> *

----------


## Brett85

> If you and RP want to be consistent constitutionalists, you would want to abolish police.  There's nothing in the constitution or any of the founders' writings about government police.  There are plenty of warnings against standing armies though-which is what the police are in practice.
> 
> i.e.-
> "Our duty, therefore, is to act upon things as they are, and to make reasonable provision for whatever they may be. Were armies to be raised whenever a speck of war is visible in our horizon, we never should have been without them. Our resources would have been exhausted on dangers which have never happened, instead of being reserved for what is really to take place."
> *Thomas Jefferson, The Sixth Annual Message, 1806, 549
> 
> *


States and local governments have the power to have police forces.  I'm generally opposed to having a federal police force, as the states and local governments have jurisidiction over that.  But the federal government has jurisdiction over Washington DC and the Capitol building.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> 1) If criticizing the police who were involved in this incident is so foundational to liberty, why hasn't Ron commented on it on Facebook or his twitter account?
> 2)  The police had absolutely no way of knowing that the woman was unarmed or had a baby in the car.


I'm sure I don't know.

It just happened.

I have no doubt about what he will say if he does.

Of course they had no way of knowing that.

They freaked out and lit her up before that could be determined.

Policy was followed.

----------


## Ender

> Not everyone here is,
> 
> 1)  An anarchist
> 2)  Hates the police
> 3)  Wants to abolish the police
> 
> Ron Paul never held any of those views.  Really, almost all of the political views I advocate are exactly the same as Ron Paul's views.  Everyone else has gone off the reservation into anarchy.


Maybe you should educate yourself to the true meaning of anarchist.

As  for Ron Paul:




> Ron Paul's economics, historical perspective and political philosophy was and is largely Rothbardian (as well as Misean and Austrian, Rothbard's own intellectual school). Ron Paul's politics can be described as constitutional Rothbardianism.
> 
> Rothbard was an anarchist and founder (and later Godfather) of the contemporary market anarchist wing of political economics. But he was no narrow minded anarchist scold or cult of personality dogmatist. He always loved watching politics and was immensely interested in the nuts and bolts of campaigns, elections and the use of politics for deeper forms of intellectual education. Rothbard publicly praised and supported Ron Paul's political career from the outset and remained an unstinting lifelong supporter throughout Ron's principled "maverick" career. Rothbard, like Paul, cared little about political labels or parties per se. He cared about meaningful action and the process of education and intellectual change. Ron Paul acknowledges that his political career was an intellectual, educational odyssey aimed at educating minds, not merely passing bits and pieces of largely meaningless statist legislation.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/01/m...r-of-rothbard/

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *States and local governments have the power to have police forces.*  I'm generally opposed to having a federal police force, as the states and local governments have jurisidiction over that.  But the federal government has jurisdiction over Washington DC and the Capitol building.


On paper, yes, but that doesn't make said power legitimate.  Simple appeals to authority aren't sufficient substitutes for reasoned arguments, my friend.

----------


## mad cow

> And, brother, that is *just* the US Code, Annotated.
> 
> There are literally *millions* of lines of CFRs (Codes of Federal Regulations - this is what EPA and OSHA and DEA and DOT and all the rest write with force of law) regulating every damn thing from 787s to raising minks for fur.
> 
> And that's just at the federal level.
> 
> There are millions more at the global level and millions more at the state, county and local level.


And ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Come on,we gotta be up to four felonies a day by now!

----------


## Ender

> 1) If criticizing the police who were involved in this incident is so foundational to liberty, why hasn't Ron commented on it on Facebook or his twitter account?
> 2)  The police had absolutely no way of knowing that the woman was unarmed or had a baby in the car.


1) If I were RP, I'd be too sickened by the incident to speak about it yet- plus I'd want all the facts, not just the MSM tripe.

2) The police were 3 feet away- they could look directly into the car.

----------


## MelissaWV

> A little optimistic, perhaps.
> 
> Some other presidency will "delegate" the "responsibility" of [selectively] enforcing the "law" to whatever agency is left. Hell, local police if need be.


That sounds like replacing  but I realize it is a pipe dream.

----------


## Brett85

> Maybe you should educate yourself to the true meaning of anarchist.
> 
> As  for Ron Paul:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/01/m...r-of-rothbard/


It seems to me like Ron Paul is more of a Ludwig Von Mises.  And I don't really see how it's possible to not be an anarchist and support abolishing the police.  About the only parts of government that minarchists want to keep are the military and the police.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Cops *are* that standing army.





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.


Bingo!  That's what I'm trying to say.

----------


## MelissaWV

> 1) If criticizing the police who were involved in this incident is so foundational to liberty, why hasn't Ron commented on it on Facebook or his twitter account?
> 2)  The police had absolutely no way of knowing that the woman was unarmed or had a baby in the car.


Please look at the photo I posted and tell me again that they could not see into the vehicle.  They were right up against the car for a length of time, and I doubt their attention was wandering elsewhere since she was the threat they were there to assess and neutralize.

As for your other posts, please link me to all my cop-hating threads.  I'm usually one of the few on the forums giving them the benefit of the doubt.  The quickest standard is whether or not you, without a badge, would be allowed to say you were justified if you did this.  Someone crashes into your fence, backs up, tries to drive away, jumps the curb down the street, and their car is no longer moving.  Do you call for medical assistance, or do you shoot them?  That's pretty unreal, that I'd even have to ask.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It seems to me like Ron Paul is more of a Ludwig Von Mises.*  And I don't really see how it's possible to not be an anarchist and support abolishing the police.*  About the only parts of government that minarchists want to keep are the military and the police.


Easy.  That vast majority of US history is absent police.  The FF's would never have dreamed of such a thing.  Care to demonstrate the reasoning a consistent Constitutionalist would use to justify police? (cite historical sources to back it up, of course)

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Easy.  That vast majority of US history is absent police.  The FF's would never have dreamed of such a thing.  Care to demonstrate the reasoning a consistent Constitutionalist would use to justify police? (cite historical sources to back it up, of course)


People in Boston rose up in armed rebellion against the exact same thing the police did in Boston 238 years later almost to the day.

----------


## Brett85

> Please look at the photo I posted and tell me again that they could not see into the vehicle.  They were right up against the car for a length of time, and I doubt their attention was wandering elsewhere since she was the threat they were there to assess and neutralize.


1)  A baby is small and hard to see, and likely wouldn't have been very high up in the seat.  And I don't think the police would've been focused on that when they felt their lives and the lives of others were at risk.

2)  I have actually never said that the police were justified in killing this woman.  I have only said that *I don't know,* since I wasn't there to witness the event.  But this woman is absolutely not just some innocent person who did nothing wrong as others are suggesting.

----------


## phill4paul

> Not everyone here is,
> 
> 1)  An anarchist
> 2)  Hates the police
> 3)  Wants to abolish the police
> 
> Ron Paul never held any of those views.  Really, almost all of the political views I advocate are exactly the same as Ron Paul's views.  Everyone else has gone off the reservation into anarchy.


  Tripe. Always have been about since forum inception. Always will be.

----------


## Brett85

> Easy.  That vast majority of US history is absent police.  The FF's would never have dreamed of such a thing.


There were like 2,000 people in the United States when we were first founded.  It's possible to keep law in order with just a county sherriff when you have a very small number of people in a country.  We now have a country of 300 million.  It's not possible to keep law and order in a country of 300 million without police forces.




> Care to demonstrate the reasoning a consistent Constitutionalist would use to justify police? (cite historical sources to back it up, of course)


Sure.  The states have this power under the 10th amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

----------


## phill4paul

> 1)  A baby is small and hard to see, and likely wouldn't have been very high up in the seat.  And I don't think the police would've been focused on that when they felt their lives and the lives of others were at risk.


  Be sure of your target and what is beyond it. 

  But, you would not know what this reference is from. Until you google it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Ludwig Von Mises


Mises supported slavery (conscription.)  Which makes me wonder, why exactly do libertarians, and even anarchists, love him so much?  I honestly don't know enough about him so this isn't a rhetorical question.

----------


## phill4paul

> There were like 2,000 people in the United States when we were first founded.  It's possible to keep law in order with just a county sherriff when you have a very small number of people in a country.  We now have a country of 300 million.  It's not possible to keep law and order in a country of 300 million without police forces.


   Thanks for exposing yourself and your belief fully.

----------


## MelissaWV

> 1)  *A baby is small and hard to see, and likely wouldn't have been very high up in the seat.*  And I don't think the police would've been focused on that when they felt their lives and the lives of others were at risk.
> 
> 2)  I have actually never said that the police were justified in killing this woman.  I have only said that *I don't know,* since I wasn't there to witness the event.  But this woman is absolutely not just some innocent person who did nothing wrong as others are suggesting.


Are you being serious right now?  Babies do not ride on the floor boards or something.  They ride in car seats, and one was visible to witnesses.  She was in the back seat... you know... the part showered by glass, since the rear windshield was shot out?  Unfortunately the police who were literally RIGHT UP AGAINST HER CAR did not see the baby... or else they did and decided firing wildly at a fleeing vehicle in a public area during the day was the prudent thing to do with a toddler in a car.




> At one point an officer even sticks his weapon inside her open passenger-side window.





> Carey's 18-month-old daughter Erica - who was in the back seat - was not injured, despite the Secret Service and U.S. Capitol police firing up to 15 shots into her car.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...edication.html

----------


## Brett85

> Are you being serious right now?  Babies do not ride on the floor boards or something.  They ride in car seats, and one was visible to witnesses.  She was in the back seat... you know... the part showered by glass, since the rear windshield was shot out?  Unfortunately the police who were literally RIGHT UP AGAINST HER CAR did not see the baby... or else they did and decided firing wildly at a fleeing vehicle in a public area during the day was the prudent thing to do with a toddler in a car.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...edication.html


I just figured that a woman who was mentally deranged wouldn't have even bothered putting her baby in a car seat.  Thanks for clarifying, although I still think the baby would've been hard to see, particularly since they would've been looking and focused on the woman.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

"Cop Bashers."  A much, much more accurate term for today's world is "Citizen Bashers."

----------


## Brett85

> Thanks for exposing yourself and your belief fully.


My belief and my political views are that I believe in limited government, that the government should only do the things that it absolutely has to do, which is exactly the same as what Ron Paul believes.  The ironic thing is that 90% of the people who post here are a lot more extreme than Ron Paul.

----------


## MelissaWV

> I just figured that a woman who was mentally deranged wouldn't have even bothered putting her baby in a car seat.  Thanks for clarifying, although I still think the baby would've been hard to see, particularly since they would've been looking and focused on the woman.


Best behaved baby in the world, not to cry when a dozen armed men are yelling at mommy through an open window and banging on the car, especially after she rammed a barrier, ran over a cop, sideswiped another barrier, no?  And these highly-trained cops were only focused on her?  How dumb would that be, considering that the first thing they should be doing in such close proximity to a vehicle is evaluating both threats and solutions... which would obviously include looking in the back seat to see if there are additional armed persons in the car with the driver, a bomb, weapons of some sort, etc.?

Babies are small and silent.  That's why the cops had no idea.

Again, not sure if serious.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

There's one thing that can be said about a lot of people on RPF, and that is we love to get involved and discuss (I use that term loosely) shootings and car explosions.  Why, I've only been gone for a little while and this thread has, what, 457 posts (including this one).  Any takers that it'll hit 500 by midnight Mountain Time?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> There were like 2,000 people in the United States when we were first founded.  It's possible to keep law in order with just a county sherriff when you have a very small number of people in a country.  We now have a country of 300 million.  It's not possible to keep law and order in a country of 300 million without police forces.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  The states have this power under the 10th amendment.
> 
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."


That is a severe stretch of the 10th Amendment's intent.  Did you know the police have no legal or Constitutional obligation to protect you or actually enforce the law?  There are more than 10 SCOTUS rulings on this, but to name a few-DeShaney v. Winnebago County and Castle Rock v. Gonzales.  Is it reasonable to consider an extra-constitutional/extra-legal institution a legitimate exercise of the 10th?  I would say not.

With that in mind, would any FF consider police Constitutional?  They (at least on paper) envisioned law enforced by accountable militias or citizens.

----------


## Brett85

> Best behaved baby in the world, not to cry when a dozen armed men are yelling at mommy through an open window and banging on the car, especially after she rammed a barrier, ran over a cop, sideswiped another barrier, no?  And these highly-trained cops were only focused on her?  How dumb would that be, considering that the first thing they should be doing in such close proximity to a vehicle is evaluating both threats and solutions... which would obviously include looking in the back seat to see if there are additional armed persons in the car with the driver, a bomb, weapons of some sort, etc.?
> 
> Babies are small and silent.  That's why the cops had no idea.
> 
> Again, not sure if serious.


The cops were supposed to hear a baby crying with all of the car noise, the windows closed, and presumably people yelling and making a lot of noise?  

Not sure if serious.

----------


## Brett85

...

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> That is a severe stretch of the 10th Amendment's intent.  Did you know the police have no legal or Constitutional obligation to protect you or actually enforce the law?  There are more than 10 SCOTUS rulings on this, but to name a few-DeShaney v. Winnebago County and Castle Rock v. Gonzales.  Is it reasonable to consider an extra-constitutional/extra-legal institution a legitimate exercise of the 10th?  I would say not.
> 
> With that in mind, would any FF consider police Constitutional?  They (at least on paper) envisioned law enforced by accountable militias or citizens.


HB, please add one more case or change "few" to "couple"

----------


## phill4paul

> I just figured that a woman who was mentally deranged wouldn't have even bothered putting her baby in a car seat.  Thanks for clarifying, although I still think the baby would've been hard to see, particularly since they would've been looking and focused on the woman.


   They were 3 $#@!ing feet away from the car at the time they decided to start shooting. Are you telling me our *highly trained* members of the law enforcement commune did not register this very significant aspect?

----------


## Brett85

> That is a severe stretch of the 10th Amendment's intent.  Did you know the police have no legal or Constitutional obligation to protect you or actually enforce the law?  There are more than 10 SCOTUS rulings on this, but to name a few-DeShaney v. Winnebago County and Castle Rock v. Gonzales.  Is it reasonable to consider an extra-constitutional/extra-legal institution a legitimate exercise of the 10th?  I would say not.
> 
> With that in mind, would any FF consider police Constitutional?  They (at least on paper) envisioned law enforced by accountable militias or citizens.


Then why didn't the founders include a ban on all police forces as part of the Bill of Rights?  They simply included limits on the power of the police and law enforcement.

----------


## phill4paul

> ...


  Yeah, ya need to just shut the $#@! up. This is possibly one of your best posts so far.

----------


## Brett85

> They were 3 $#@!ing feet away from the car at the time they decided to start shooting. Are you telling me our *highly trained* members of the law enforcement commune did not register this very significant aspect?


I'm just saying that it's impossible for anyone to say for sure.  None of us have all of the details of this incident.  But some people will just jump to conclusions without knowing all of the details and go on their cop bashing crusade.  All I've said is that I don't know for sure whether it was absolutely necessary for the police to kill this woman or not.  I'm just taking the rational, reasonable position, rather than just bashing the police because of hatred for anything to do with government.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Then why didn't the founders include a ban on all police forces as part of the Bill of Rights?  They simply included limits on the power of the police and law enforcement.


Oh, no.  Don't do that.  Constitution is not a forbidding document, it is an authoritative document.  It says what they can do, everything else is left to the states and the people.

----------


## Brett85

> It says what they can do, everything else is left to the states and the people.


Right, the police is left up to states and local governments.  And the federal government has jurisdiction over Washington DC.

----------


## phill4paul

> My belief and my political views are that I believe in limited government, *that the government should only do the things that it absolutely has to do*, which is exactly the same as what Ron Paul believes.  The ironic thing is that 90% of the people who post here are a lot more extreme than Ron Paul.


  Absolutely has to do..............

  What is it exactly that they are authorized to do? By any stretch of the imagination you cannot tell me that Ron Paul is supportive of the militarization of the police state.

----------


## Brett85

> Absolutely has to do..............
> 
>   What is it exactly that they are authorized to do? By any stretch of the imagination you cannot tell me that Ron Paul is supportive of the militarization of the police state.


Ron Paul has never advocated abolishing the police.  And I've never advocated the militarization of the police.  I've just said that I'm not going to automatically criticize the police in this situation since I wasn't there to witness the event and don't have all the facts.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Then why didn't the founders include a ban on all police forces as part of the Bill of Rights?  They simply included limits on the power of the police and law enforcement.


Well, I can't read their minds or ask them, but probably the same reason they didn't take into consideration a number of tyrannies that are part of our daily lives.  They simply didn't have the ability to read the future.  Why didn't the founders write in a clause or two allowing police?  They clearly took into account this sort of thing, as evidenced by the 2nd amendment.  We know there was crime of all sorts back then.  Human nature seems to be consistent WRT that.  Yet no "police" as we know them occurred to anyone in the 18th/19th centuries.  Why?  Seems to me that people understood it to be a bad idea.

----------


## Brett85

> Yeah, ya need to just shut the $#@! up. This is possibly one of your best posts so far.


You really aren't a very nice person, to put it mildly.  I've been completely civil in this thread explaining my position, and you just have to post disgusting crap like that for no reason.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Right, the police is left up to states and local governments.  And the federal government has jurisdiction over Washington DC.


is =/= ought.  State and local regimes can, on paper, do a lot of things.  That doesn't mean they should.

----------


## phill4paul

> I'm just saying that it's impossible for anyone to say for sure.  None of us have all of the details of this incident.  But some people will just jump to conclusions without knowing all of the details and go on their cop bashing crusade.  All I've said is that I don't know for sure whether it was absolutely necessary for the police to kill this woman or not.  I'm just taking the rational, reasonable position, rather than just bashing the police because of hatred for anything to do with government.


  Say what for sure. That her weapon of mass destruction was immobilized by barriers for and aft? That even within the confines of these barriers here vehicle appeared immobilized by witnesses? That police that were within three feet of the vehicle did not notice a child in the car?  Rational? Reasonable? Wut?

----------


## TaftFan

> She had a weapon of mass destruction (a car).


Actually much more dangerous than a gun. She was armed.

----------


## anaconda

Rand should be all over this incident. He can make Obama look evil, cowardly, and ridiculous, while simultaneously championing at least 3 or 4  serious civil rights issues, including biased, unfair treatment of African Americans by law enforcement.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> My belief and my political views are that I believe in limited government, that the government should only do the things that it absolutely has to do, which is exactly the same as what Ron Paul believes.  The ironic thing is that 90% of the people who post here are a lot more extreme than Ron Paul.


I don't think so.  The ancaps here are still a minority.  I think there are a least as many Cruz shills here as there are ancaps.




> Then why didn't the founders include a ban on all police forces as part of the Bill of Rights?  They simply included limits on the power of the police and law enforcement.


Because its not their job to tell the states how they can or cannot enforce their laws...

I don't think anyone here is proposing a Federal law that would ban police.




> You really are a sick and demented person.  I've been completely civil in this thread explaining my position, and you just have to post disgusting crap like that for no reason.


Yeah, I have to agree with you here.  Although I have to ask, why did you make a post with just dots?




> Yeah, ya need to just shut the $#@! up. This is possibly one of your best posts so far


C'mon.  I agree that he's wrong and this is ridiculous.  Don't be a jerk.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> is =/= ought.  State and local regimes can, on paper, do a lot of things.  That doesn't mean they should.


Is/ought fallacy.  I can just imagine Sola jumping on this one

----------


## Brett85

> Yeah, I have to agree with you here.  Although I have to ask, why did you make a post with just dots?


Because my computer malfunctioned and I had a duplicate post, and didn't want to have two posts where I said exactly the same thing.

----------


## Brett85

I apologize if my rhetoric towards "Phil4Paul" was a bit harsh, but he engages in these kind of personal attacks all the time, even when the other posters are being civil.

----------


## anaconda

> Did they applaud before or after they learned the woman was unarmed?


They are probably mostly lawyers. Shouldn't they weigh in on the evidence before erupting in applause? Did Massie and Amash stand and cheer?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Because my computer malfunctioned and I had a duplicate post, and didn't want to have two posts where I said exactly the same thing.


Ah, OK.




> I apologize if my rhetoric towards "Phil4Paul" was a bit harsh, but he engages in these kind of personal attacks all the time, even when the other posters are being civil.


That was probably a bit harsh (And I honestly didn't really think through that part of your post when I first replied) but you're absolutely right that he's attacking you for no reason, unless political disagreements alone are enough reason to attack someone.  In which case, there are a LOT of people I'd attack, even here, before I'd pick on you

----------


## phill4paul

> You really are a sick and demented person.  I've been completely civil in this thread explaining my position, and you just have to post disgusting crap like that for no reason.


  I get to a point were I just can't stand the police state worship anymore. You've worshiped it since your account inception.* Label me. Label you.* It is what it is...

----------


## TaftFan

The video:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d4b_1380838413

Bottom line is she is a nut who was endangering everybody. Who pulls this crap on Capitol Hill as well; you know security is heightened.

----------


## Brett85

> Did Massie and Amash stand and cheer?


I don't know, but Amash and Rand both congratulated the Boston police after they caught the bombing suspect.  Shoot, they would probably be labeled "trolls" and "radical statists" if they posted here.

----------


## DGambler

> The cops were supposed to hear a baby crying with all of the car noise, the windows closed, and presumably people yelling and making a lot of noise?  
> 
> Not sure if serious.


Do you have children?  A screaming baby would have been heard.

----------


## Brett85

> I get to a point were I just can't stand the police state worship anymore. You've worshiped it since your account inception.* Label me. Label you.* It is what it is...


Not hardly.  The fact that I don't want to abolish the police doesn't mean that I support the police state.  I don't support the police state anymore than Ron Paul does.  I oppose the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, warrentless searches of people's homes, etc.  Just look at my signature.  I'm strongly opposed to the police state and oppose all of the police state policies.  It's just that people here are so radical that it actually makes me look like some kind of supporter of the police state, just like Ron Paul, Justin Amash, and Rand Paul would be labeled as radical statist, police state proponents if they posted here.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I get to a point were I just can't stand the police state worship anymore. You've worshiped it since your account inception.* Label me. Label you.* It is what it is...


I think he's being a little generous, but I wouldn't call what he's doing "Worshipping."  Failure to take libertarianism to its logical conclusions?  Sure.  (Although I doubt any of us are PERFECTLY consistent.)  A little naive when it comes to his view of police?  I tend to think so, although I'm willing to consider that I might be wrong.  Wrong on Romans 13?  Again, I tend to think so, most Christians would side with him.  But I don't see TC acting like every cop is a hero.  He's not presuming that the cops were right here (he's said he doesn't know.)  He's not loudly singing "Battle Hymn of the Republic" or any other stupid "patriotic" songs (at least as far as I know.)  He's a Ron Paul supporter for crying out loud, and not one that uncritically accepts everything that comes out of the mouth of Rand Paul or Ted Cruz either.

I don't think I've agreed with a single thing TC has said in this thread, and you're still being ridiculous.  I don't see any cop-worship from him.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Oh, no.  Don't do that.  Constitution is not a forbidding document, it is an authoritative document.  It says what they can do, everything else is left to the states and the people.


Of course, though, the states being limited as well.

Individual, God given- or naturally obtained/acquired, demonstrated/exercised, and [understood,]- rights cannot be legitimately restrained based on any denomination of a majority.

For example, people speak of the states being legitimate in restraining what a person chooses to ingest... like $#@! they are. This position is taken by those who understand the populace of being short sighted, naive, "dumb-asses" (for lack a better word) who think in slogans and $#@! thoughts.

It annoys me that people think just because a state says something is, It Is. It annoys me more with the "just move" rhetoric but frankly, states rights are a check against federal intrusion into the_ individual's_ life. They aren't omnipotent entities to rule against the accordance, or for a better description, clarity, of Natural Law.

----------


## DGambler

> The video:
> 
> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d4b_1380838413
> 
> Bottom line is she is a nut who was endangering everybody. Who pulls this crap on Capitol Hill as well; you know security is heightened.


So, there are different rules for our esteemed leaders?

----------


## phill4paul

> I apologize if my rhetoric towards "Phil4Paul" was a bit harsh, but he engages in these kind of personal attacks all the time, even when the other posters are being civil.


  I've seen your bull$#@! statist rhetoric since your account inception. I grow tired of individuals that constantly post the same bull$#@! memes time after time. Things like "They didn't know if she had a gun or a bomb." Then after my correction to your bull$#@! premise it posted again. And again. And Again. $#@! it. I'm tired of your bull$#@!. 
 And newer folks like FF are just gonna have to live with it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't know, but Amash and Rand both congratulated the Boston police after they caught the bombing suspect.  Shoot, they would probably be labeled "trolls" and "radical statists" if they posted here.


Did they actually defend what the police did in  Boston, or just the catching of the suspect?

Did they lie like Biden did and say he attacked us because of our way of life?  I doubt it.

I'm not necessarily opposed to congratulating police if and when they actually deserve it.  I still support getting the government out of it, and everything else.




> Not hardly.  The fact that I don't want to abolish the police doesn't mean that I support the police state.  I don't support the police state anymore than Ron Paul does.  I oppose the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, warrentless searches of people's homes, etc.  Just look at my signature.  I'm strongly opposed to the police state and oppose all of the police state policies.  It's just that people here are so radical that it actually makes me look like some kind of supporter of the police state, just like Ron Paul, Justin Amash, and Rand Paul would be labeled as radical statist, police state proponents if they posted here.


Pretty much this.  Don't mistake 90% allies with enemies...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I've seen your bull$#@! statist rhetoric since your account inception. I grow tired of individuals that constantly post the same bull$#@! memes time after time. Things like "They didn't know if she had a gun or a bomb." Then after my correction to your bull$#@! premise it posted again. And again. And Again. $#@! it. I'm tired of your bull$#@!. 
>  And newer folks like FF are just gonna have to live with it.


I think you're making the anarchist/anti-police position look more irrational than it actually is.  Take it as you will.

----------


## TaftFan

> So, there are different rules for our esteemed leaders?


Yes. An attack on our leaders is an attack on the country.

----------


## phill4paul

> Ron Paul has never advocated abolishing the police.  And I've never advocated the militarization of the police.  I've just said that I'm not going to automatically criticize the police in this situation since I wasn't there to witness the event and don't have all the facts.


  So what you are saying is that you will accept the "official" report without questioning because you believe in the integrity of the law enforcement forces despite ample evidence proving that they should be scrutinized. I don't recall Ron Paul EVER saying do not question. Ever.

----------


## Ender

> Then why didn't the founders include a ban on all police forces as part of the Bill of Rights?  They simply included limits on the power of the police and law enforcement.


They did.

In those days it was called a "standing army".

----------


## Brett85

> I think you're making the anarchist/anti-police position look more irrational than it actually is.  Take it as you will.


I have him on my ignore list but have just been clicking to open his posts.  I guess I should just resist the temptation to read his posts.

----------


## Brett85

> So what you are saying is that you will accept the "official" report without questioning because you believe in the integrity of the law enforcement forces despite ample evidence proving that they should be scrutinized. I don't recall Ron Paul EVER saying do not question. Ever.


No, I'm saying that it's good to question, but don't always assume that the police are always wrong in these kind of situations.

----------


## phill4paul

> I think you're making the anarchist/anti-police position look more irrational than it actually is.  Take it as you will.


How am I making it look irrational? Have you read this whole thread and my posts therein?

----------


## Brett85

> Did they actually defend what the police did in  Boston, or just the catching of the suspect?


Amash just gave the police credit for catching the suspect.  Rand made it sound like the he supported what the police in Boston did.

----------


## Root

> I'm sure I don't know.
> 
> It just happened.
> 
> I have no doubt about what he will say if he does.
> 
> Of course they had no way of knowing that.
> 
> They freaked out and lit her up before that could be determined.
> ...


Policy was followed here too comrade, no?

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> Economic stimulus.  Button-printers got a large rush order.


MSM spin has started to unravel and they have slowly started to back track. So the "thank you" buttons may have to be srquestered soon:


*Family of woman killed in DC chase wants answers*

Courtesy Dr. Barry Weiss
Miriam Carey, the woman who led police on a chaotic chase in Washington and was shot to death.

By Becky Bratu, Staff Writer, NBC News
The  family of the woman who was shot to death Thursday outside the U.S.  Capitol after trying to ram her car through a White House barrier said  Miriam Carey was a carefree, loving, law-abiding citizen who did not  deserve to be killed. 
Speaking to media late Friday outside their  Brooklyn, N.Y., home after returning from Washington, where they  identified Carey's body, her two sisters said they were "still very  confused, as a family, as to why she’s not alive.” 
*"My sister did  not deserve to have her life shortened at this early stage,” said  Valerie Carey, a former sergeant with the New York Police Department.* 

 "There was no indication that she was unstable,” Amy Carey said, adding that she had spoken to Miriam, 34, on the phone Monday.

Video  shot by the U.S.-funded Alhurra news network shows six officers with  guns drawn approaching the stopped car and attempting to order the  driver out of the vehicle. But Carey whipped the car around, scattering  the officers.
Officers fired nine shots after Carey circumnavigated Garfield Circle, then exited onto Constitution Avenue, officials said.
The  chase ended minutes later at the northeast corner of the Capitol  grounds, near the U.S. Supreme Court building, when a barrier stopped  the Infiniti near Second Street Northeast.* The officials said she became  stuck on a median by a Capitol Police guard post, where she was shot  dead.*
The sisters said the family had not been properly notified  by government officials about Miriam’s death, and added they had  identified her body by looking at a photograph and not actually seeing  her body.
Valerie Carey said the family learned of Miriam’s death from the media.
“It  is a shame that my mother, my sister and I had to find out from  reporters who called us,” she said. "Shame on the Metropolitan D.C.-area  personnel for still not informing us of what has happened to my  sister.”


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...s-answers?lite






> *‘Obama Bodyguards’, DC Cops Gun Down Unarmed Black Woman – Where is Al Sharpton?*
> 
>   October 4, 2013
> Led by Washington DC law enforcement spokespersons, CNN, MSNBC and the   Washington Post, were in full propaganda mode from the word go, all   repeating the same line:
> 
> _“A driver tried to breach a White House security barrier; Capitol was put on lock-down after shots fired.”
> 
> “A woman attempted to ram White House gate.”_


http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/10/04/obama-bodyguards-dc-cops-gunned-down-unarmed-black-woman-where-is-al-sharpton/

----------


## phill4paul

> No, I'm saying that it's good to question, but don't always assume that the police are always wrong in these kind of situations.


  Given the record of dog-shootin', unarmed persons killin', thugscrummin', strip searchin', cavity probin', cash siezin', victim rapin', flash bangin' child killin', innocent citizen woundin' of the men in blue I choose to scrutinize. Thank you very much. And your neg rep means nothing to me. I am beyond repute.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> States and local governments have the power to have police forces.


Nope:

Virgina Declaration of Rights 




> Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


New Hampshire Bill of Rights




> XXV. Standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up without the consent of the legislature.


Vermont Bill of Rights




> XV. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


North Carolina Bill of Rights




> XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


California Bill of Rights




> Sec. 12. The military shall be subordinate to the civil power. No standing army shall be kept up by this State in time of peace; and in time of war no appropriation for a standing army shall be for a longer time than two years.


Nevada Bill of Rights




> Sec. 11.  Right to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.
> 
>       1.  Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.
> 
>       2.  The military shall be subordinate to the civil power; No standing army shall be maintained by this State in time of peace, and in time of War, no appropriation for a standing army shall be for a longer time than two years.


Maryland Bill of Rights




> Art. 29. That Standing Armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised, or kept up, without the consent of the Legislature.


Pennsylvania Bill of Rights




> Section 22.
> 
> No standing army shall, in time of peace, be kept up without the consent of the Legislature, and the military shall in all cases and at all times be in strict subordination to the civil power.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> And your neg rep means nothing to me. I am beyond repute.


I just gave you a rep, so it evens out.  Heh, heh.

----------


## phill4paul

> Amash just gave the police credit for catching the suspect.  Rand made it sound like the he supported what the police in Boston did.


  The suspect wasn't caught. She was killed. "Sounding like" is an personal interpretation.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes. An attack on our leaders is an attack on the country.


No, its not.   "Our Leaders" deserve to die.  If somebody wants to execute them for the murders they have committed, be my guest.  If they're assassinated, I don't condone that, but I'd cry much more for a "mere mundane" than I would for them getting what they justly deserve.



> So what you are saying is that you will accept the "official" report without questioning because you believe in the integrity of the law enforcement forces despite ample evidence proving that they should be scrutinized. I don't recall Ron Paul EVER saying do not question. Ever.


Neither is TC.  Don't strawman.



> I have him on my ignore list but have just been clicking to open his posts.  I guess I should just resist the temptation to read his posts.


If it bothers you tat much, probably.



> No, I'm saying that it's good to question, but don't always assume that the police are always wrong in these kind of situations.


What was your take on the case where the police arrested a victim in Maine in order to force her to testify?

I'm sorry, I've just seen way too much crap with the police.  Read William Grigg.  Its a big eye opener.  Unless you already have, in which case, I can't say much else.

Are the cops ALWAYS wrong?  No.  As people with special privledges (Which  they shouldn't have) should we hold them to higher levels of scrutiny?  Absolutely.




> How am I making it look irrational? Have you read this whole thread and my posts therein?


I haven't read the whole thread.  But unless I'm missing something, calling TC a "cop-worshipper" is hurting our argument.  

Real cop worshippers call the cops "Heroic" when they arrest a drug user or a drug dealer.  Real cop worshippers say that cops are "Keeping them safe" when they stop and frisk people, or violate the 2nd amendment.  Real cop worshippers are "law and order, no matter what".  By contrast, TC said he'd sooner resign than enforce an immoral law.  I don't agree with all of his views, but I don't see why you think he's a cop worshipper.

----------


## TaftFan

> No, its not.  * "Our Leaders" deserve to die.*  If somebody wants to execute them for the murders they have committed, be my guest.  If they're assassinated, I don't condone that, but I'd cry much more for a "mere mundane" than I would for them getting what they justly deserve.


You're a nut. Take your medicine.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Amash just gave the police credit for catching the suspect.


I don't have an issue with that.  




> Rand made it sound like the he supported what the police in Boston did.


Then I do have an issue with that.  Ron Paul rightfully called out what they did as tyrannical.  I also know you probably agree with Rand over Ron on this.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You're a nut. Take your medicine.


Are you denying that they are murderers?  And you said you weren't "Beltway"?  Lol.

----------


## TaftFan

> Are you denying that they are murderers?  And you said you weren't "Beltway"?  Lol.


Sure I am.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You're a nut. Take your medicine.


His rhetoric is a bit over the top, but he's got a point.  It's not really "just" for the ruling class to order the murder of or directly murder anyone, citizen or foreigner.  The leader or caste member who does this could justly be killed. (it happened to the Germans and numerous other, after all)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Sure I am.


Wow... You're an idiot.  

Are you seriously going to claim that this isn't murder on the part of Obama and the drone operator?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...-in-one-attack

(TC, if you're curious, this was the article that made me go from not really liking the military, and not supporting what they do, to absolutely hating the military and completely agreeing with virtually everything Laurence Vance has said about them.  That made my blood boil.)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> His rhetoric is a bit over the top, but he's got a point.  It's not really "just" for the ruling class to order the murder of or directly murder anyone, citizen or foreigner.  The leader or caste member who does this could justly be killed.


What on earth is wrong with my rhetoric?

----------


## phill4paul

> I haven't read the whole thread.  But unless I'm missing something, calling TC a "cop-worshipper" is hurting our argument.  
> 
> Real cop worshippers call the cops "Heroic" when they arrest a drug user or a drug dealer.  Real cop worshippers say that cops are "Keeping them safe" when they stop and frisk people, or violate the 2nd amendment.  Real cop worshippers are "law and order, no matter what".  By contrast, TC said he'd sooner resign than enforce an immoral law.  I don't agree with all of his views, but I don't see why you think he's a cop worshipper.


  You've been here for about seven months. TC has been here for 2 Yrs. seven and I have been here for 5 yrs and two. Can you just admit in this instance that you don't know what you are talking about?

----------


## anaconda

Al Sharpton silent on this. And MSNBC. Rand should be going ballistic on this. 

http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/10/0...s-al-sharpton/

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> What on earth is wrong with my rhetoric?


When you express yourself thusly: 


> No, its not. *"Our Leaders" deserve to die. If somebody wants to execute them for the murders they have committed, be my guest. If they're assassinated, I don't condone that, but I'd cry much more for a "mere mundane" than I would for them getting what they justly deserve.*


You come off as over the top/extreme to most people, even though you're right.  You have to couch these things in "nice" language when talking in mixed company.

----------


## phill4paul

+rep and repost.........




> Policy was followed here too comrade, no?

----------


## phill4paul

> Al Sharpton silent on this. And MSNBC. Rand should be going ballistic on this. 
> 
> http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/10/0...s-al-sharpton/


  An "el negro" gunned down by cops and not a word? Shocking.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You've been here for about seven months. TC has been here for 2 Yrs. seven and I have been here for 5 yrs and two. Can you just admit in this instance that you don't know what you are talking about?


Its possible, sure.  But I'm not seeing it from him here.



> When you express yourself thusly: 
> You come off as over the top/extreme to most people, even though you're right.  You have to couch these things in "nice" language when talking in mixed company.


To play devil's advocate, why?

That said, in a face to face conversation I'd probably water it down a little bit.  On RPF I really shouldn't have to.  People here should know better, or at least, be willing to hear a viewpoint like this.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Just out of curiosity, HB, how would you have said what I said?  Is there really any "nice" way to say it?

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> Al Sharpton silent on this. And MSNBC. Rand should be going ballistic on this. 
> 
> http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/10/0...s-al-sharpton/


MSNBC has to, to be consistent. 
 Rand doesn't have to ..unless he put on one of the above buttons. But he could.

----------


## phill4paul

> Its possible, sure.  But I'm not seeing it from him here.


  Free to form your opinions thusly. Or go to wayback and catch up. I really don't care.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Free to form your opinions thusly. Or go to wayback and catch up. I really don't care.


If you don't care, why comment at all?   If you have something you actually want to share, go ahead, but if you don't care, why should I care about what you're saying?

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> The suspect wasn't caught. She was killed. "Sounding like" is an personal interpretation.



Getting "You must spread some Reputation around" message.




> The  chase ended minutes later at the northeast corner of the Capitol   grounds, near the U.S. Supreme Court building, when a barrier stopped   the Infiniti near Second Street Northeast.* The officials said she became  stuck on a median by a Capitol Police guard post, where she was shot  dead.*

----------


## phill4paul

> Just out of curiosity, HB, how would you have said what I said?  Is there really any "nice" way to say it?





> "Our Leaders" deserve to die. If somebody wants to execute them for the murders they have committed, be my guest. If they're assassinated, I don't condone that, but I'd cry much more for a "mere mundane" than I would for them getting what they justly deserve.


  Aherm...

  We should seek the sternest political action to hold our leaders accountable for their actions. We should write stern letters to our representatives and those astute and unbiased members of the third rail using CAPITALIZATION an angry colors. We should use exclamation points!!!!! For exclamation points have ever righted any wrong in this world.

----------


## phill4paul

> If you don't care, why comment at all?   If you have something you actually want to share, go ahead, but if you don't care, why should I care about what you're saying?


  Excuse me if I am wrong, and I'm not, my post was directed to TC. YOU interjected. I was replying to YOUR interjection. No? And I don't care whether you care about what I am saying. That's a trait of an old curmudgeon. No bull$#@! is a rule.

----------


## Brett85

> Then I do have an issue with that.  Ron Paul rightfully called out what they did as tyrannical.  I also know you probably agree with Rand over Ron on this.


I really just took more of a middle position on that as well, just saying that I don't agree with everything the police did there, but that I understood why they took the actions that they took given the situation that existed.

----------


## Brett85

> You're a nut. Take your medicine.


Come on now.  Freedom Fanatic and I disagree all the time, and I don't like some of the rhetoric he uses, but at least he's civil to the other people who post here, unlike Phil4Paul.  You should direct your ire towards him.

----------


## phill4paul

> I really just took more of a *middle* position on that as well, just saying that I don't agree with everything the police did there, but that I understood why they took the actions that they took *given the situation that existed*.


  Like hero worship of Kyle for sniping women and children because of _the situation that existed_? Has the battlefield come to our capital now? We may be approaching the point where there's not going to be a middle anymore. I'm not even sure there still is.

----------


## Brett85

> What was your take on the case where the police arrested a victim in Maine in order to force her to testify?


I haven't heard anything about that.  But I've clearly said in this thread that there are bad cops who do bad things that I disagree with.  I'm not a "cop worshiper," despite what others in this thread are claiming.

----------


## Brett85

> Like hero worship of Kyle for sniping women and children because of _the situation that existed_? Has the battlefield come to our capital now? We may be approaching the point where there's not going to be a middle anymore. I'm not even sure there still is.


I don't ever recall "worshipping" Chris Kyle either.  I probably just rejected some of the extreme rhetoric that people use when people call him a "murderer."  I have a disagreement with people here concerning the rhetoric that they use on foreign policy, but my actual foreign policy is the same.  I support bringing our troops home and having a non interventionist foreign plicy.

----------


## phill4paul

> Come on now.  Freedom Fanatic and I disagree all the time, and I don't like some of the rhetoric he uses, but at least he's civil to the other people who post here, unlike someone else who's posting in this thread who I've already neg repped.


  I savor your deleterious attempts to diminish my reputation. And also your quick edit. Lol.

----------


## phill4paul

> I don't ever recall "worshipping" Chris Kyle either.  I probably just rejected some of the extreme rhetoric that people use when people call him a "murderer."  I have a disagreement with people here concerning the rhetoric that they use on foreign policy, but my actual foreign policy is the same.  I support bringing our troops home and having a non interventionist foreign plicy.


  So you agree that killing women and children is something that should not be done in the interest of the state? Regardless of reason?

----------


## Origanalist

> Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative  
> Come on now. Freedom Fanatic and I disagree all the time, and I don't like some of the rhetoric he uses, but at least he's civil to the other people who post here, unlike someone else who's posting in this thread who I've already neg repped.


Oooh, you're such a tough guy.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I really just took more of a middle position on that as well, just saying that I don't agree with everything the police did there, but that I understood why they took the actions that they took given the situation that existed.


Oh, I thought you defended the Boston police.  Although, I don't remember enough of the situation to remember why I was opposed to it, I just know I was.




> Come on now.  Freedom Fanatic and I disagree all the time, and I don't like some of the rhetoric he uses, but at least he's civil to the other people who post here, unlike Phil4Paul.  You should direct your ire towards him.


I literally insulted someone in this thread.  It wasn't unprovoked though.  




> Like hero worship of Kyle for sniping women and children because of _the situation that existed_? Has the battlefield come to our capital now? We may be approaching the point where there's not going to be a middle anymore. I'm not even sure there still is.


Chris Kyle was absolutely a murderer.  Yet another one I ain't crying for.




> I haven't heard anything about that.  But I've clearly said in this thread that there are bad cops who do bad things that I disagree with.  I'm not a "cop worshiper," despite what others in this thread are claiming.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ine+Law+Victim

This is pretty much a litmus test between the plants/jokes, and the people who actually support liberty.




> I don't ever recall "worshipping" Chris Kyle either.  I probably just rejected some of the extreme rhetoric that people use when people call him a "murderer."  I have a disagreement with people here concerning the rhetoric that they use on foreign policy, but my actual foreign policy is the same.  I support bringing our troops home and having a non interventionist foreign plicy.


You may not worship him, but I seriously, seriously hope you haven't read the intro to his book.  I couldn't read the rest (Too disgusting) but I opened the book in a Wal-Mart one time and I read the intro.  Not only did Chris Kyle murder over a hundred Iraqis, he was PROUD of it.  He actually said he wished he killed more.  Kyle was not one of the numerous soldiers who were doped into fighting and regretted it later.  He actively dehumanized his enemies, called them "savages" for defending their country, and said he wished he had killed more to protect his fellow aggressors in arms.  The man was everything evil in the US military rolled into one.  I'm ashamed to admit that when Ron Paul first made the "Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword" comment, I jumped a little because I thought Ron was kind of implying he deserved what he got (This was my fault, not his, and I quickly figured out otherwise.)  Ron would never say such a thing, of course, but if he did, he wouldn't have been wrong.  He was a neocon shill, and a mass murderer.  The man no more deserved to live than Ted Bundy.

Again, what's wrong with our rhetoric?  Killing an innocent person doesn't magically become less serious a crime because the person who does it wears a government uniform.  Especially when they actually celebrate such killings and wish they could have done more.

(For the record, I do recognize that not every person in the US military commits murder, and that not every person who does is proud of it.)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So you agree that killing women and children is something that should not be done in the interest of the state? Regardless of reason?


I'm pretty sure he does agree, but is just uncomfortable with our rhetoric.  Which, is great for politics.  Not so great here.  But each to his own.  I don't agree with him on this, obviously.

----------


## Origanalist

> Not everyone here is,
> 
> 1)  An anarchist
> 2)  Hates the police
> 3)  Wants to abolish the police
> 
> Ron Paul never held any of those views.  Really, almost all of the political views I advocate are exactly the same as Ron Paul's views.  Everyone else has gone off the reservation into anarchy.


derp (really, that's all I have to say)

----------


## phill4paul

> I'm pretty sure he does agree, but is just uncomfortable with our rhetoric.  Which, is great for politics.  Not so great here.  But each to his own.  I don't agree with him on this, obviously.


  You see? This is where you are not getting the long term association that TC and myself, and others, have. He loves to feign "middle-ground" yet his written words betray his real intent. FF, take it for what it is, and don't focus on this specific thread. TC is NOT the misguided liberty lover you might take him for. He's had 5 years to re-evaluate his beliefs. He will side with the state unless it is clear cut bull$#@!. If it is not clear cut then he will snipe. He will interject phrases like "They didn't know if she had a gun or bomb." And he will do it, over and over and over again. even in the face of others countering that there is no defense in his protestations. There is no reformation for some. Some are intent in their purpose to obfuscate and distract.   Like I say. Take it for what is worth.

----------


## phill4paul

And THIS is the end all.....

  Miriam Carey was boxed in when she was shot. There were barriers fore and aft. She had nowhere to go and no one to injure when her car was immobilized on the median. She had no gun. She was not a threat to either civilians or law enforcement or, god save them, government whores at the time of her expiration.

   RIP

----------


## dannno

> *D.C. Cops Running Drill on Same Day as Capitol Shooting*
> http://www.infowars.com/d-c-cops-run...itol-shooting/


Shocked, shocked I tell you.

----------


## bunklocoempire

> You've been here for about seven months. TC has been here for 2 Yrs. seven and I have been here for 5 yrs and two. Can you just admit in this instance that you don't know what you are talking about?


What do you even know about it?  _December.._  Sheesh. 




> And THIS is the end all.....
> 
>   Miriam Carey was boxed in when she was shot. There were barriers fore and aft. She had nowhere to go and no one to injure when her car was immobilized on the median. She had no gun. She was not a threat to either civilians or law enforcement or, god save them, government whores at the time of her expiration.
> 
>    RIP


+ rep

Having her boxed in and NOT practicing restraint..  _not practicing restraint_...   It's no wonder the sobs applauded -seems to be a common and prevalent state-trait.  War officers needed immediately, peace officers exhibiting actions like self sacrifice and the courage needed to preserve liberty need not apply.

Just how much flippin self restraint does a mundane have to show daily?   gggggrrrrrr

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> An attack on our leaders is an attack on the country.


What about an attack on the leaders of an unconstitutional ruling regime that had overtaken the country illegally? Would the Second Amendment require any less?




> During the 1788 ratification debates, ... It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.


http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...70581644084946

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Bottom line is she is a nut who was endangering everybody. Who pulls this crap on Capitol Hill as well; you know security is heightened.


So if nuts on Capitol Hill calling themselves "government employees" were to endanger everybody, what would be this bottom line you speak of?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I'm just saying that it's impossible for anyone to say *for sure*.  None of us have *all of the details* of this incident.  But some people will just jump to conclusions without *knowing all of the details* and go on their cop bashing crusade.  All I've said is that I don't *know for sure* whether it was absolutely necessary for the police to kill this woman or not.  I'm just taking the rational, reasonable position, rather than just bashing the police because of hatred for anything to do with government.


But the legal standard for arresting the police for murder would be _probable cause_, not "knowing for sure" or "knowing all the details"; right?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

..

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I'm just saying that it's impossible for anyone to say for sure.  *None of us have all of the details of this incident.*  But some people will just jump to conclusions without knowing all of the details and go on their cop bashing crusade.  All I've said is that I don't know for sure whether it was absolutely necessary for the police to kill this woman or not.  I'm just taking the rational, reasonable position, rather than just bashing the police because of hatred for anything to do with government.


No, we don't, and never will, because the *only* person that could have shed some real light on what was going on, is dead, cut down in a hail of poorly placed cop gunfire.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Yes. An attack on our leaders is an attack on the country.


Leaders?

LOL

That bunch of cum drunk sluts that I would not trust to "lead" me anywhere?

Those "leaders"?

Leaders....pfffft.

A free country does not have "leaders".

----------


## donnay

> Quote Originally Posted by TaftFan View Post 
> 
> Yes. An attack on our leaders is an attack on the country.



As they lead us right into total tyranny.  God Save the Queen!!

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I'm just... rather than just bashing the police because of hatred for anything to do with government.


Your bashing of police (the ones who disagree with you) isn't anti-government hatred?




> Originally Posted by Yahoo News
> 
> retired New York City police officer... said there was "no need for a gun to be used when there was no gunfire coming from the vehicle."
> 
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/sisters-fatal-...070205353.html

----------


## thoughtomator

> No, we don't, and never will, because the *only* person that could have shed some real light on what was going on, is dead, cut down in a hail of poorly placed cop gunfire.


There's also the videotape of the White House end of this incident, which for some reason is not available. That would show how the incident started, which is probably why we will never see it, just like haven't gotten to see any pictures of the allegedly rammed gate.

The other half of the story will prove that she acted reasonably to protect her child from armed attackers.

----------


## 69360

> No, its not.   "Our Leaders" deserve to die.  If somebody wants to execute them for the murders they have committed, be my guest.



It's time for the mods to think about banning this kid. If he flips out and kills somebody, this place is going to get a lot of negative attention.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> Did Massie and Amash stand and cheer?


Well, according to this: http://www.fromthetrenchesworldrepor...d-mother/60003, "ENTIRE House Of Representatives Gives Standing Ovation To Cops After Killing Unarmed Mother."  The word "entire" is in all caps.

----------


## Brett85

> So you agree that killing women and children is something that should not be done in the interest of the state? Regardless of reason?


I've always believed in the principle of non aggression, that our country should not start preemptive wars against other nations, but that we certainly have every right to defend ourselves when we've been attacked or are under attack.

----------


## MelissaWV

> The cops were supposed to hear a baby crying with all of the car noise, the windows closed, and presumably people yelling and making a lot of noise?  
> 
> Not sure if serious.


I already posted that the window was open.  Now the baby is too quiet AND too small.




> At one point an officer even sticks his weapon inside her open passenger-side window.


If you are close enough to be sticking your gun through the open window (which is a really against-policy/logic thing to do, because it is a good way to lose your weapon if she takes off with your arms sticking in her car, or if there is a second person in the car), then you should be able to identify a huge car seat sitting in the back of the car, if only because you are supposedly afraid that this is some crazy terrorist meaning to do you harm that might have explosives or co-conspirators in the vehicle with them.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> It's time for the mods to think about banning this kid. If he flips out and kills somebody, this place is going to get a lot of negative attention.


They say the best way to get positive attention from the government is to give it a bj. Would you require everyone to do that, if you had power? Would you ban references to Thomas Jefferson too, since he killed all those government employees that one time?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> It's time for the mods to think about banning this kid. If he flips out and kills somebody, this place is going to get a lot of negative attention.


LOL.  Maybe we should all just do a virtual cowering under the table from that terrible loon. 

Perhaps the heroic DC po-lice can take preemptive action and just shoot Freedom Fanatic now.

----------


## Brett85

> Well, according to this: http://www.fromthetrenchesworldrepor...d-mother/60003, "ENTIRE House Of Representatives Gives Standing Ovation To Cops After Killing Unarmed Mother."  The word "entire" is in all caps.


I wouldn't be surprised at all if they stood and cheered.  It wouldn't be inconsistent with what they stand for and advocate.  They stand for limited government, that we should have a government much smaller than we have now, but that there are still some legitimate functions for the government.  Neither of them are extreme, radical anti government people that hate the police and think that the police are always wrong in what they do.  I absolutely support Amash and Massie 100% in what they're doing in Washington DC but probably couldn't support 80% of the people who post here if they ever decided to run for office.  That just shows you how radical this place has become.  It's not simply a place for people who believe in things like limited government, balanced budgets, paying off the national debt, abolishing different departments, etc.  It's gotten to the point where there's even a litmus test that you have to hate the military and the police, or else you're just a "radical statist" spreading propaganda for the government.  Amash and Massie would absolutely get called out as being "big government trolls" if they posted here.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> Not everyone here is,
> 
> 1)  An anarchist
> 2)  Hates the police
> 3)  Wants to abolish the police
> 
> Ron Paul never held any of those views.  Really, almost all of the political views I advocate are exactly the same as Ron Paul's views.  Everyone else has gone off the reservation into anarchy.


That's what I perceive about Ron Paul, although I'd be interested in hearing him actually directly address those issues.

----------


## 69360

> They say the best way to get positive attention from the government is to give it a bj. Would you require everyone to do that, if you had power? Would you ban references to Thomas Jefferson too, since he killed all those police that one time?


Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Care to tell us about why you were in federal prison? 

This person should have been banned a long time ago as well.

----------


## MelissaWV

> The video:
> 
> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d4b_1380838413
> 
> Bottom line is she is a nut who was endangering everybody. Who pulls this crap on Capitol Hill as well; you know security is heightened.


A) that is not the start of the chase

B) you can see the cop with his gun all the way inside of her car

C) the cops don't open fire until it is contraindicated by distance, speed, angle, and bystanders being around

D) there are cars there with which they could have boxed her in more efficiently, and pilons to stand behind for cover if the cops genuinely feared for their lives

Who pulls this crap on Capitol Hill?  Shooting wildly at a fleeing vehicle endangers everybody.

----------


## 69360

> I wouldn't be surprised at all if they stood and cheered.  It wouldn't be inconsistent with what they stand for and advocate.  They stand for limited government, that we should have a government much smaller than we have now, but that there are still some legitimate functions for the government.  Neither of them are extreme, radical anti government people that hate the police and think that the police are always wrong in what they do.  I absolutely support Amash and Massie 100% in what they're doing in Washington DC but probably couldn't support 80% of the people who post here if they ever decided to run for office.  That just shows you how radical this place has become.  It's not simply a place for people who believe in things like limited government, balanced budgets, paying off the national debt, abolishing different departments, etc.  It's gotten to the point where there's even a litmus test that you have to hate the military and the police, or else you're just a "radical statist" spreading propaganda for the government.  Amash and Massie would absolutely get called out as being "big government trolls" if they posted here.


It's an off year between elections, the nut cases are allowed free reign. Hopefully a tighter ship will be run when Rand announces.

People I talk to everyday, think I am extreme far right, but here I am a cop worshiping statist liberal.

----------


## tod evans

> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Care to tell us about why you were in federal prison? 
> 
> This person should have been banned a long time ago as well.


Go back to bed grump.

"Banned" my happy ass!

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Care to tell us about why you were in federal prison?


I don't see the relevance, but here's the government's explanation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...bEt5c6Rsno/pub




> This person should have been banned a long time ago as well.


Why?




> Originally Posted by better-dead-than-fed
> 
> 
> They say the best way to get positive attention from the government is to give it a bj. Would you require everyone to do that, if you had power? Would you ban references to Thomas Jefferson too, since he killed all those police that one time?
> 
> 
> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.


How so? You're not even making sense.

----------


## Brett85

> It's an off year between elections, the nut cases are allowed free reign. Hopefully a tighter ship will be run when Rand announces.
> 
> *People I talk to everyday, think I am extreme far right, but here I am a cop worshiping statist liberal.*


Exactly!  Me too.  On these forums I'm supposedely some radical statist who posts here to defend the "state's position," but in real life I'm considered to be some radical libertarian who doesn't believe in government.

----------


## MelissaWV

> No, I'm saying that it's good to question, but don't always assume that the police are always wrong in these kind of situations.


Strangely, you aren't refuting what's right there in the videos.  As I said before there are videos that require a lot of leaps of faith in order to question, or taking the word of witnesses and experts.  Then there is video that is absolutely clear.  They had chances to stop her without endangering everyone else.  They had chances to arrest her.  They waited, instead, for her car to disable itself and for her to get out of the car, and THEN they shot her.  They originally said she ran into that cop car that actually wrecked itself on a barrier.  They originally said she might have a bomb... then it was downgraded to a gun... a knife... finally just a toddler.  They originally said she rammed through a barrier at the White House... then it was the corner of one of the lawns... then it wasn't really ramming... then it was obvious from photos that she either has the most amazing car ever, or the story makes no sense.  (Ever get into a minor fender bender with a modern car?  Do you know why they call it "trading paint"?)  They originally said the police heroically saved the baby... then in the video you can see them shooting randomly at a fleeing vehicle where they either were too stupid to look in the car for additional threats (or victims/hostages) or had already seen a baby.

This is not a case of "always."  It's a case of look the hell in front of you and stop trying to be contrary for contrarians' sake.  

Look at the images of the aftermath.  Please understand what a procedural $#@!up this is.  Did you see the photo I posted of random civilians lying in place along the road?  If you've got the MASSIVE police presence, and you really do believe this is potentially a terrorist event that threatens the city, how about you devote a few folks to clearing the area?  Assisting and protecting civilians?  Congressmen were told to remove their pins and get indoors.  It doesn't look like the average person was afforded any similar information, since most of them were just walking around.

I think it's hilarious that I usually get painted as a cop-loving Statist for questioning BOTH sides (usually because there's no irrefutable video or photographic evidence), but here I am apparently a career cop-basher.

----------


## Theocrat

Though I believe that the woman should have stopped her vehicle when told by the police to do so, I still don't believe that the cops should have shot her to death. Granted, the D.C. police did not know what her intentions were when she drove off in a frenzy, and it may have thought that she was a terrorist, seeking to bomb the U.S. Capitol. But the incident just shows how trigger-happy our law enforcement has become these days, where they "shoot first, and ask questions later."

Ironically, many of our politicians fear that citizens are going to do the same thing if they are allowed to own whatever firearms they desire, and so, those politicians push for tighter gun-control laws. Yet, it seems that it is the police that needs strict gun-control laws to protect innocent American citizens from being killed without "due process of the law." I think Miriam Carey was a victim, in that regard.

Taking nothing away from the tragedy of this shooting, I am glad to see that none of the major media outlets are playing the "race card" on this incident.

----------


## 69360

> I don't see the relevance, but here's the government's explanation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...bEt5c6Rsno/pub
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> How so?


In case anyone missed it, this person has a felony conviction for threatening to shoot up a school. His own sister took it seriously enough to turn him in. I think allowing somebody like this to post here is not a good idea and I think the other kid is not very far behind this guy. This isn't all fun and games.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> There's also the videotape of the White House end of this incident, which for some reason is not available. That would show how the incident started, which is probably why we will never see it, just like haven't gotten to see any pictures of the allegedly rammed gate.


They are likely to go the way of the OKC bombing videos of John Doe #2 and the Amsterdam airport videos of Kurt Haskel and the sharp dressed man.




> The other half of the story will prove that she acted reasonably to protect her child from armed attackers.

----------


## tod evans

> In case anyone missed it, this person has a felony conviction for threatening to shoot up a school. His own sister took it seriously enough to turn him in. I think allowing somebody like this to post here is not a good idea and I think the other kid is not very far behind this guy. *This isn't all fun and games.*


Good God man!

How in the world are either of their opinions going to effect you?

_"Felony conviction"_, boogity-boogity!

----------


## MelissaWV

> In case anyone missed it, this person has a felony conviction for threatening to shoot up a school. His own sister took it seriously enough to turn him in. I think allowing somebody like this to post here is not a good idea and I think the other kid is not very far behind this guy. This isn't all fun and games.


We have several ex-cons on the board for a variety of incidents, and people who used to post here have gone on to do some terrible things as well.  

We also have some vindictive jerks who post personal information rather than continue to debate the relevant facts of a case.  

At least I know where the former group stands.  The latter type of person is the on that I worry more about.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Hopefully a tighter ship will be run when Rand announces.


Why do you invoke Rand's name while promoting censorship and tyranny? Do you believe he shares your views?

----------


## Brett85

> I think it's hilarious that I usually get painted as a cop-loving Statist for questioning BOTH sides (usually because there's no irrefutable video or photographic evidence), but here I am apparently a career cop-basher.


I didn't necessarily mean that everyone who disagrees with what the cops did here is a "cop basher."  I was just referring more to the usual suspects who criticize the police no matter what they do and use rhetoric like "state sponsored murder."  I'll take you at your word that you don't always criticize the police.  I guess I'll have to go back and watch the video again, because I thought the police had shot this woman when she was still in her car, because they were afraid that she would try to run over them again like she did before if they got too close.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> In case anyone missed it, this person has a felony conviction for threatening to shoot up a school.


The conviction was wrongful, so what is your point (besides conflating conviction with guilt)?




> His own sister took it seriously enough to turn him in.


How do you presume to know her motive?




> I think allowing somebody like this to post here is not a good idea


Because you think I violated the forum guidelines, or because you think it would be a good idea for admin to disregard the forum guidelines?

----------


## MelissaWV

> I didn't necessarily mean that everyone who disagrees with what the cops did here is a "cop basher."  I was just referring more to the usual suspects who criticize the police no matter what they do and use rhetoric like "state sponsored murder."  I'll take you at your word that you don't always criticize the police.  I guess I'll have to go back and watch the video again, because I thought the police had shot this woman when she was still in her car, because they were afraid that she would try to run over them again like she did before if they got too close.


There is no video of her being shot in the car that I know of.  The one officer who was "run over" was at the barrier near the White House and there is no released video of that, either.  The two main pieces of video released are of an incident in the middle of the chase, where cops were so close they could reach inside the open window, and of the part near the end of the chase where the police car runs over the barrier and is wrecked.  It is during the video where the cops have surrounded her that she takes off and you can hear the police shooting in her general direction once she is some distance away, which is just idiotic.

When she is shot, the car is stopped on the median (there are photos of this), no longer moving, and no longer ABLE to move (though the police would not know the last part necessarily).  There are barriers erected to keep her in, as posted earlier in the thread.

----------


## Origanalist

> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Care to tell us about why you were in federal prison? 
> 
> This person should have been banned a long time ago as well.


Time to clean this place up! The riff raff are going to give us a bad name.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Time to clean this place up! The riff raff are going to give us a bad name.


I will be the first to go if we start getting banned purely based on personal baggage.

----------


## 69360

> I will be the first to go if we start getting banned purely based on personal baggage.


I've never seen you post anything that worried me at all. Those other two, I honestly think could flip out and do something awful.

----------


## tod evans

> I will be the first to go if we start getting banned purely based on personal baggage.


I've got a few more miles on me....

----------


## dinosaur

> Nobody has a right to shoot someone who is fleeing.  If you want to give the police that right, then you have to give citizens that right also.  if you want to deny that to citizens, then you have to deny it to police also.  Otherwise, we do not live in a 'republican form of government' and the Constitution stands in abrogation.  The courts are more often wrong than right.


I don't understand why people don't get this.  There is either a separate morality for law enforcement or there isn't.  Some of the people I normally agree with here seem to be advocating a separate standard for law enforcement.  The minute we start thinking that way we invite tyranny.

----------


## Origanalist

> I've never seen you post anything that worried me at all. Those other two, I honestly think could flip out and do something awful.


Let's ban em, they sound dangerous to me too. They say things that make me uncomfortable.

----------


## Brett85

> There is no video of her being shot in the car that I know of.  The one officer who was "run over" was at the barrier near the White House and there is no released video of that, either.  The two main pieces of video released are of an incident in the middle of the chase, where cops were so close they could reach inside the open window, and of the part near the end of the chase where the police car runs over the barrier and is wrecked.  It is during the video where the cops have surrounded her that she takes off and you can hear the police shooting in her general direction once she is some distance away, which is just idiotic.
> 
> When she is shot, the car is stopped on the median (there are photos of this), no longer moving, and no longer ABLE to move (though the police would not know the last part necessarily).  There are barriers erected to keep her in, as posted earlier in the thread.


Fair enough.  I may have to go back and look at the details of what happened and look at this further.  Keep in mind that I've said since the very beginning that I don't know for sure whether it was absolutely necessary for the police to shoot this woman or not, just that this woman was a nut who originally iniated this entire incident with her crazy stunts.

----------


## 69360

> I've got a few more miles on me....


Again never seen a problem from you at all. 

Those other two, freedom fanatic and better dead than fed, seem like a bomb ready to go off. Some of the stuff they have posted is scary.

----------


## 69360

> Let's ban em, they sound dangerous to me too. They say things that make me uncomfortable.


I can't tell if you are serious or not. But I would just hate to see screenshots of RPF on the news if they kill a bunch of people.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Those other two, I honestly think could flip out and do something awful.


Your opinion would matter, if baseless medical opinions had value. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5245909

----------


## MelissaWV

> I can't tell if you are serious or not. But I would just hate to see screenshots of RPF on the news if they kill a bunch of people.


Sadly enough, this theory has already been busted, as there was someone who posted on here who did kill someone.  RPFs wasn't mentioned, though.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Some of the stuff they have posted is scary.


Specifically? Is this part of your theory that people should be imprisoned for exercising their constitutional rights? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5245909

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I would just hate to see screenshots of RPF on the news if


But you would like to see a screenshots of RPF on the news if you got a candidate elected who shared your support for censorship and tyranny?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Some of the stuff they have posted is scary.


Would you like to ban the alphabet? Do you believe Rand would like that?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Hunh.  Whaddya you know about that.  We got us a tattletale rat, a psychologist, and a scare-dee cat all rolled into one, right here on Liberty Forest.

----------


## DGambler

I'm done with this thread, it was murder, plain and simple and our overlords and their goons will never be held accountable.

I'm amazed that some can't even acknowledge what MelissaWV is pointing out.

----------


## Origanalist

> Hunh.  Whaddya you know about that.  We got us a tattletale rat, a psychologist, and a scare-dee cat all rolled into one, right here on Liberty Forest.


Shhhhh, don't scare him.

----------


## Bryan

Everyone, let's please stick to discussing the issues. If someone posts something that you feel is against the Usage Guidelines then please report the post using the report feature. 

Thank you.


-RPFs Staff

----------


## Brett85

> Everyone, let's please stick to discussing the issues. If someone posts something that you feel is against the Usage Guidelines then please report the post using the report feature. 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> -RPFs Staff


I've already done that, but apparently nothing ever happens.  Apparently if someone here has been a member here for a long time they can't even receive a temporary ban, even if they launch completely unprovoked personal attacks that clearly violate the Forum Guidelines.

----------


## Ranger29860

> Perhaps my GoogleFu is broken this morning, most IED stories I uncovered were in warzones outside of the US.... are you stating that the police are becoming militarized and training for IED usage here?


IED's have been around before that term became so well know because of the Iraq war. There have been multiple bombings in the U.S. and abroad at embassy's and bases that would be called IED attacks. Trying to make it sound like its a new thing is dishonest.

----------


## tod evans

> IED's have been around before that term became so well know because of the Iraq war. There have been multiple bombings in the U.S. and abroad at embassy's and bases that would be called IED attacks. Trying to make it sound like its a new thing is dishonest.


IED= 30 gallon trash bag filled w/ oxygen and acetylene...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Strangely, you aren't refuting what's right there in the videos.  As I said before there are videos that require a lot of leaps of faith in order to question, or taking the word of witnesses and experts.  Then there is video that is absolutely clear.  They had chances to stop her without endangering everyone else.  They had chances to arrest her.  They waited, instead, for her car to disable itself and for her to get out of the car, and THEN they shot her.  They originally said she ran into that cop car that actually wrecked itself on a barrier.  They originally said she might have a bomb... then it was downgraded to a gun... a knife... finally just a toddler.  They originally said she rammed through a barrier at the White House... then it was the corner of one of the lawns... then it wasn't really ramming... then it was obvious from photos that she either has the most amazing car ever, or the story makes no sense.  (Ever get into a minor fender bender with a modern car?  Do you know why they call it "trading paint"?)  They originally said the police heroically saved the baby... then in the video you can see them shooting randomly at a fleeing vehicle where they either were too stupid to look in the car for additional threats (or victims/hostages) or had already seen a baby.
> 
> This is not a case of "always."  It's a case of look the hell in front of you and stop trying to be contrary for contrarians' sake.  
> 
> Look at the images of the aftermath.  Please understand what a procedural $#@!up this is.  Did you see the photo I posted of random civilians lying in place along the road?  If you've got the MASSIVE police presence, and you really do believe this is potentially a terrorist event that threatens the city, how about you devote a few folks to clearing the area?  Assisting and protecting civilians?  Congressmen were told to remove their pins and get indoors.  It doesn't look like the average person was afforded any similar information, since most of them were just walking around.
> 
> I think it's hilarious that I usually get painted as a cop-loving Statist for questioning BOTH sides (usually because there's no irrefutable video or photographic evidence), but here I am apparently a career cop-basher.


Perception filters are powerful things.  They see something completely different in the videos and images than we do.  They see the same videos we do of a woman fleeing in terror, but what they perceive is a woman attacking officers and trying to breech the White House and the Capitol.  Every human being is subject to the vagaries of subjective perspectives, but I am quite confident that an objective analysis is going to be a lot closer to what you and I see here.

----------


## tod evans

Screaming men pointing guns, screaming terrified infant, even an emotionally stable person would freak....

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> In case anyone missed it, this person has a felony conviction for threatening to shoot up a school. His own sister took it seriously enough to turn him in. I think allowing somebody like this to post here is not a good idea and I think the other kid is not very far behind this guy. This isn't all fun and games.


It's no secret that I _really_ don't like that guy, but wouldn't that be a 'poisoning the well' ad hominem?

----------


## Bryan

> I've already done that, but apparently nothing ever happens.  Apparently if someone here has been a member here for a long time they can't even receive a temporary ban, even if they launch completely unprovoked personal attacks that clearly violate the Forum Guidelines.


Thanks for the note, sometimes the report processing isn't perfect for various reasons. If you see such a case please send me a PM with the link(s) so I can take a closer look.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I don't understand why people don't get this.  There is either a separate morality for law enforcement or there isn't.  Some of the people I normally agree with here seem to be advocating a separate standard for law enforcement.  The minute we start thinking that way we invite tyranny.


Worse than invite, directly advocate for.  But yeah.  The whole point to a republican form of government is that everybody from the President to the plumber is held to the same standard of law.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Again never seen a problem from you at all. 
> 
> Those other two, freedom fanatic and better dead than fed, seem like a bomb ready to go off. Some of the stuff they have posted is scary.


Isn't that the same thing Glenn Beck once said about "all Ron Paul supporters?"

----------


## Ranger29860

> Isn't that the same thing Glenn Beck once said about "all Ron Paul supporters?"


To be fair though, a claim made by Beck would be a stereotypical statement based on certain voices within the movement that he uses to paint all members as like that. While some of the things I have seen on here would be where those claims came from. I'm not calling anyone out by name here since it would muddle the issue but. When people post things like all cops should be killed, all military members are child killers, and that we should "get a rope" along with cheering shootings (to be fair I haven't seen that lately)and encouraging people to shoot cops or trying to rile people up to do something (violent) it does cause me some concern about the safety of both that person saying it and those around them. Now it is the internet and most people who say things like that wont ever do something but it still doesn't sit right with me.

----------


## Brett85

> Worse than invite, directly advocate for.  But yeah.  *The whole point to a republican form of government is that everybody from the President to the plumber is held to the same standard of law.*


That's why there's going to be an investigation of this incident, like there always is.  It's not like it's just being ignored.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's time for the mods to think about banning this kid. If he flips out and kills somebody, this place is going to get a lot of negative attention.


You'd be asking for the ban of Thomas Jefferson too.  But I have no desire to kill anyone.  I do have a desire to educate, and to expose the Leviathan for the sick, wicked evil that it is.  And I will not falsely pretend the aggressors that have killed far more people than Ted Bundy or Anders Brevik somehow, in some sick, twisted sense, has any kind of rights just because they did so while in a government uniform.



> I've always believed in the principle of non aggression, that our country should not start preemptive wars against other nations, but that we certainly have every right to defend ourselves when we've been attacked or are under attack.


I don't think anyone disagrees with you on defense.  Even as an anarchist, I don't really disagree with you on defense.  If somebody legitimately attacked the US, I'd have absolutely no issue with defending ourselves.  I do have moral issues with the way most wars are fought these days, I find the acceptance of "collateral damage" to be wicked, but that's a different issue entirely from defending our soil.  I don't believe that the US was immoral in 1812 or the Revolution for defending themselves against British oppression/invasion.   I don't believe the CSA* was immoral in 1861 when it defended itself against US invasion. (*I'm not talking about slavery, or anything else, here.  Just the specific issue of defending themselves against invasion.)  That said, you'd probably have no problem defending WWII because the Japanese attacked us.  I really can't.  I honestly do think we kind of provoked that attack, and even if we didn't, the kind of tactics we used were acts of terrorism in some cases.  As I often say "What do you call someone who kills a bunch of innocent civilians for a political agenda?  A terrorist!"  (And yes, I believe the Germans and Japanese were terrorists too.  I'm not defending them at all.  But everyone knows that.)




> I wouldn't be surprised at all if they stood and cheered.  It wouldn't be inconsistent with what they stand for and advocate.  They stand for limited government, that we should have a government much smaller than we have now, but that there are still some legitimate functions for the government.  Neither of them are extreme, radical anti government people that hate the police and think that the police are always wrong in what they do.  I absolutely support Amash and Massie 100% in what they're doing in Washington DC but probably couldn't support 80% of the people who post here if they ever decided to run for office.  That just shows you how radical this place has become.  It's not simply a place for people who believe in things like limited government, balanced budgets, paying off the national debt, abolishing different departments, etc.  It's gotten to the point where there's even a litmus test that you have to hate the military and the police, or else you're just a "radical statist" spreading propaganda for the government.  Amash and Massie would absolutely get called out as being "big government trolls" if they posted here.


Why couldn't you support us?  All we would do, at best, is shift the overton window a bit.  Its not like we'd get 100% of what we want.




> Exactly!  Me too.  On these forums I'm supposedely some radical statist who posts here to defend the "state's position," but in real life I'm considered to be some radical libertarian who doesn't believe in government.


I think you'd expect that the median position of people who are fanatical enough about the Ron Paul Movement to post here regularly would be a bit more anti-state than the average sheep on the street




> Though I believe that the woman should have stopped her vehicle when told by the police to do so, I still don't believe that the cops should have shot her to death. Granted, the D.C. police did not know what her intentions were when she drove off in a frenzy, and it may have thought that she was a terrorist, seeking to bomb the U.S. Capitol. But the incident just shows how trigger-happy our law enforcement has become these days, where they "shoot first, and ask questions later."
> 
> Ironically, many of our politicians fear that citizens are going to do the same thing if they are allowed to own whatever firearms they desire, and so, those politicians push for tighter gun-control laws. Yet, it seems that it is the police that needs strict gun-control laws to protect innocent American citizens from being killed without "due process of the law." I think Miriam Carey was a victim, in that regard.
> 
> Taking nothing away from the tragedy of this shooting, I am glad to see that none of the major media outlets are playing the "race card" on this incident.


I hope you're joking about gun control?




> In case anyone missed it, this person has a felony conviction for threatening to shoot up a school. His own sister took it seriously enough to turn him in. I think allowing somebody like this to post here is not a good idea and I think the other kid is not very far behind this guy. This isn't all fun and games.


Agreed.  Its not.  We get that you hate George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and believe they were terrorists.  Seriously, we know.  Now please kindly shut up, Mr. 666





> Why do you invoke Rand's name while promoting censorship and tyranny? Do you believe he shares your views?


I doubt it.




> You see? This is where you are not getting the long term association that TC and myself, and others, have. He loves to feign "middle-ground" yet his written words betray his real intent. FF, take it for what it is, and don't focus on this specific thread. TC is NOT the misguided liberty lover you might take him for. He's had 5 years to re-evaluate his beliefs. He will side with the state unless it is clear cut bull$#@!. If it is not clear cut then he will snipe. He will interject phrases like "They didn't know if she had a gun or bomb." And he will do it, over and over and over again. even in the face of others countering that there is no defense in his protestations. There is no reformation for some. Some are intent in their purpose to obfuscate and distract.   Like I say. Take it for what is worth.


I might have to look back a little.  But whatever.  Do what you want.  I reserve my attacks for those who attack me.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Let's ban em, they sound dangerous to me too. They say things that make me uncomfortable.


Let's ban everyone who makes us uncomfortable.  If we do, who would be left?

----------


## tod evans

> That's why there's going to be an investigation of this incident, like there always is.  It's not like it's just being ignored.


Investigated by whom?

Yes it will most likely "be ignored"...

----------


## Brett85

> Why couldn't you support us?  All we would do, at best, is shift the overton window a bit.  Its not like we'd get 100% of what we want.


Maybe I shouldn't have said "80%," but I at least couldn't support someone like "Phil4Paul" who not only takes extremely radical positions but can't even debate issues in an intelligent and civil way.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> To be fair though, a claim made by Beck would be a stereotypical statement based on certain voices within the movement that he uses to paint all members as like that. While some of the things I have seen on here would be where those claims came from. I'm not calling anyone out by name here since it would muddle the issue but. When people post things like all cops should be killed, all military members are child killers, and that we should "get a rope" along with cheering shootings (to be fair I haven't seen that lately)and encouraging people to shoot cops or trying to rile people up to do something (violent) it does cause me some concern about the safety of both that person saying it and those around them. Now it is the internet and most people who say things like that wont ever do something but it still doesn't sit right with me.


Let me clarify my stance.

I don't say police or military should be killed.  What I do say is that aggression is aggression, no matter who's doing it.  If a military member does kill a bunch of people overseas (Not all of them do, obviously) and then someone kills them, I'm not going to pretend like they somehow didn't get what they deserved.  I don't condone it, but I'm not crying for them either.  I more or less take a similar stance with police.   Try to break into an innocent man's home, and if he defends himself, that is his right as a free man.  

Personally, as a Christian I'd try to avoid using violence if at all possible.  But as a libertarian, if someone does use violence against government officials in defense or retaliation against aggression, I'm not going to pretend that official is somehow a victim either.

As for the politicians, again, almost all of them are aggressors, so I wouldn't cry for them.  That doesn't mean I'm actually planning to kill anyone in Congress, which would be absurd, useless, and not my place.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> That's why there's going to be an investigation of this incident, like there always is.  It's not like it's just being ignored.


For at least 60 years, the police have always been 'investigated' to a different standard than regular citizens.  The mere existence of an investigation does not create equivalence.  Indeed, I would argue that the fact that police are investigated to an entirely different standard than the ordinary citizen to be evidence of culpability, since these investigators are knowingly holding the thin blue line to a lower standard of deadly force than they do the non-police citizen.

----------


## Brett85

> For at least 60 years, the police have always been 'investigated' to a different standard than regular citizens.  The mere existence of an investigation does not create equivalence.  Indeed, I would argue that the fact that police are investigated to an entirely different standard than the ordinary citizen to be evidence of culpability, since these investigators are knowingly holding the thin blue line to a lower standard of deadly force than they do the non-police citizen.


Then what do you think is the solution to that problem?

----------


## WM_in_MO

I used to listen to Savage all the time, pretty good rants but not reliable substance.

However he's pretty close to how I feel (If that wasn't clear already)

Pretty good clip:

----------


## Root

> Investigated by whom?


The hero's of course

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Maybe I shouldn't have said "80%," but I at least couldn't support someone like "Phil4Paul" who not only takes extremely radical positions but can't even debate issues in an intelligent and civil way.


I'd vote for either/both of you.  You may hate each other but you both want to seriously roll back the State.

But, if I ever ran, you wouldn't know it was me, because I'd have to water down my rhetoric some even if I took the same positions.  Which makes sense as well.  As a politician, your job is, as Rand has said, to change laws through the legal process.  Although, I could never pretend to actually support the military or that they were fighting for our freedoms like Rand often does (And yes, he's pretending, his dad is Ron Paul, he knows better) so I'd probably never get elected anyway

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Then what do you think is the solution to that problem?


Abolish police

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Let's ban everyone who makes us uncomfortable.  If we do, who would be left?


TC might be the most libertarian member left if they got their way

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I _really_ don't like that guy,


Because you still insanely believe I'm your political opponent Dave Goetze?




> Ladies and gentlemen, I invite you to examine the behavior of one of my opponents in my current race, better-dead-than-fed.





> Hello Dave, ...


http://www.scribd.com/doc/145562289/...l-Smear-Page-2

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> That doesn't mean I'm actually planning to kill anyone in Congress, which would be absurd, useless, and not my place.


Are you saying that the Founding Fathers were absurd and useless when they killed all those government employees?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Because you still insanely believe I'm your political opponent Dave Goetze?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/145562289/...l-Smear-Page-2


Well, since you asked...

Because you are an angry, bitter, vindictive man who puts ego over both principle and practicality, and you employ deception and sophistry with nearly every argument you make.  You hit 4 out of 7 of my biggest pet peeves, and this habit of yours of "retaining evidence to use against people in the future" merely confirms to me the desperate scumbaggery I saw in you from the start.  You may not be Dave Goetze, but your manner, speech, and sophistic construction are identical to his, and sight unseen you could pass for his twin.  I dislike him for the same reasons I dislike you.  Nothing but nothing is quicker to make me view a person as 'subhuman' than a reliance on sophistry.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> TC might be the most libertarian member left if they got their way


Wow....LOL.  And I say that without any intent to offend TC because I'm pretty sure he doesn't even _want_ to be libertarian.

----------


## Brett85

> Are you saying that the Founding Fathers were absurd and useless when they killed all those government employees?


Didn't someone say that you tried to shoot up a school?

----------


## Brett85

> Wow....LOL.  And I say that without any intent to offend TC because I'm pretty sure he doesn't even _want_ to be libertarian.


It depends on how the word is defined.  I don't have any problem at all with Rand, Massie, and Amash, except that I'm probably slightly more libertarian than them.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Then what do you think is the solution to that problem?


Something akin to the proposed "28th Amendment" that's been going around, but expanded to include "all government employees at every level, municipal, parish, county, district, state, region, and federal."

This would be in keeping with the authority already granted in the US Constitution under Article 4 Section 4 guaranteeing to the states a republican form of government.  That is one of the few areas where the federal government is legitimately _supposed_ to compel the states.  The problem is that Article 4 Section 4 is not explicit enough, therefore making it explicit through something akin to an expanded version of the proposed 28th Amendment would have a positive impact on the issue.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> there's even a litmus test that you have to hate the military and the police, or else you're just a "radical statist" spreading propaganda for the government.


I think your perception is off, as you're not coming to terms with your own disagreement with police here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5255658




> radical anti government people that hate the police and think that the police are always wrong in what they do.


But people are agreeing with the police woman who said Carey shouldn't have been shot, so you're not being honest here.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Wow....LOL.  And I say that without any intent to offend TC because I'm pretty sure he doesn't even _want_ to be libertarian.


I wasn't either.  TC is a nice guy.  69630 (Those number may be wrong, I don't care, I just stick with "666" ) is a statist shill. He actually neg repped me for "Disrespecting the military" because I called them out for what they really are.  That's how I identify a state worshipper.  Not someone who uses softer rhetoric than I do, but someone who is actually angered when the truth is proclaimed.



> Didn't someone say that you tried to shoot up a school?


Do you always believe what people say?  (I know nothing about this.)



> It depends on how the word is defined.  I don't have any problem at all with Rand, Massie, and Amash, except that I'm probably slightly more libertarian than them.


You forgot Ron.  Apparently you secretly hate Ron

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Didn't someone say that you tried to shoot up a school?


You either have me confused with someone else, or you misunderstood what you read. Try quoting instead paraphrasing? It would help you overcome your comprehension / recollection disorder. You're breaking the forum guidelines, but I'm not a tattler like you.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Do you always believe what people say?


No one even said that.

----------


## Brett85

> You forgot Ron.  Apparently you secretly hate Ron


I'm probably slightly less libertarian than Ron, although I agreed with him on enough to support him in 2008 and 2012.  I don't think that Rand, or even Massie and Amash, are as libertarian as Ron was.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm probably slightly less libertarian than Ron, although I agreed with him on enough to support him in 2008 and 2012.  I don't think that Rand, or even Massie and Amash, are as libertarian as Ron was.


I was only joking.  But yes, I think Ron is more libertarian than Massie or Amash, who in turn are more libertarian than Rand.  

I'm curious how many of the people that hate you love Rand...  Or even Ted Cruz

----------


## Brett85

> You either have me confused with someone else, or you misunderstood what you read. Try quoting instead paraphrasing? It would help you overcome your comprehension / recollection disorder. You're breaking the forum guidelines, but I'm not a tattler like you.


See post #566.




> In case anyone missed it, this person has a felony conviction for threatening to shoot up a school. His own sister took it seriously enough to turn him in. I think allowing somebody like this to post here is not a good idea and I think the other kid is not very far behind this guy. This isn't all fun and games.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Because you are an angry, bitter, vindictive man who puts ego over both principle and practicality, and you employ deception and sophistry with nearly every argument you make.  You hit 4 out of 7 of my biggest pet peeves, and this habit of yours of "retaining evidence to use against people in the future" merely confirms to me the desperate scumbaggery I saw in you from the start.  You may not be Dave Goetze, but your manner, speech, and sophistic construction are identical to his, and sight unseen you could pass for his twin.  I dislike him for the same reasons I dislike you.  Nothing but nothing is quicker to make me view a person as 'subhuman' than a reliance on sophistry.


Post a link to where I did that? Or are you just being delusional, like the times you insanely accused me of being Dave Goetze?

----------


## chudrockz

> That's why there's going to be an investigation of this incident, like there always is.  It's not like it's just being ignored.


I'm SURE the "investigation" will be impartial, and the cops found to have been in the wrong.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> See post #566.


I was wrongfully convicted of a "threat"; there was never any accusation (except from you) that I "tried" or had intent to harm anyone; so no, I'm not a guy who tried to shoot up anything.

Is this relevant, or just some sort of personal attack?

----------


## Ranger29860

> See post #566.


 To be fair "attempting" and " threatening" are to different things (doesn't make it ok but that is what they are getting at I think)

----------


## Occam's Banana

> That's why there's going to be an investigation of this incident, like there always is.  It's not like it's just being ignored.


That's why there's going to be an "in house" review of this incident followed by an all-but-guaranteed "in policy" exoneration - like there always is.

If the people firing guns in this incident had been "civilians" rather than police, THEN there would be an actual investigation followed by other proceedings.

----------


## phill4paul

> Maybe I shouldn't have said "80%," but I at least couldn't support someone like "Phil4Paul" who not only takes extremely radical positions but can't even debate issues in an intelligent and civil way.


   Seems as if I need to petition a mod or admin. over this egregious act against forum rules.

----------


## DGambler

> IED's have been around before that term became so well know because of the Iraq war. There have been multiple bombings in the U.S. and abroad at embassy's and bases that would be called IED attacks. Trying to make it sound like its a new thing is dishonest.


Oh for $#@!s sake, are you $#@!ing kidding me?  I don't hear stories on a regular basis of road side bombs or any other bombs in the US... Not to the point that it should even be used as a $#@!ing excuse for them murdering this lady.

I'm sure you'll point at Boston or Oklahoma though.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> To be fair "attempting" and " threatening" are to different things (doesn't make it ok but that is what they are getting at I think)


They are different, but I didn't "threaten" either. I was convicted but not guilty -- something traditional conservatives have a tough time comprehending.

----------


## Brett85

> I was wrongfully convicted of a "threat"; there was never any accusation (except from you) that I "tried" or had intent to harm anyone; so no, I'm not a guy who tried to shoot up anything.
> 
> Is this relevant, or just some sort of personal attack?


Aren't you personally attacking government employees when you say they should be murdered?




> Are you saying that the Founding Fathers were absurd and useless when they killed all those government employees?

----------


## Brett85

> They are different, but I didn't "threaten" either. I was convicted but not guilty -- something traditional conservatives have a tough time comprehending.


It's hard for me to believe that you're "not guilty" when you threaten to murder government employees.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Seems as if I need to petition a mod or admin. over this egregious act against forum rules.


I saw it. You're not imagining it. It made me sad when he violated the rules.

----------


## tod evans

> Oh for $#@!s sake, are you $#@!ing kidding me?  I don't hear stories on a regular basis of road side bombs or any other bombs in the US... Not to the point that it should even be used as a $#@!ing excuse for them murdering this lady.
> 
> I'm sure you'll point at Boston or Oklahoma though.



Think about bombing frequency as a response to governments behavior, then look at the legislation enacted and the behavior of the enforcers of said legislation..

MSM/government officials are using terms coined in war-zones for a reason...

There's a war on Americans being waged by government.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> you threaten to murder government employees.


Again: You either have me confused with someone else, or you misunderstood what you read. Try quoting instead paraphrasing? It would help you overcome your comprehension / recollection disorder. You're breaking the forum guidelines, but I'm not a tattler like you.

----------


## Brett85

> Again: You either have me confused with someone else, or you misunderstood what you read. Try quoting instead paraphrasing? It would help you overcome your comprehension / recollection disorder. You're breaking the forum guidelines, but I'm not a tattler like you.


That's easy enough.




> Are you saying that the Founding Fathers were absurd and useless when they killed all those government employees?

----------


## Ranger29860

> Oh for $#@!s sake, are you $#@!ing kidding me?  I don't hear stories on a regular basis of road side bombs or any other bombs in the US... Not to the point that it should even be used as a $#@!ing excuse for them murdering this lady.
> 
> I'm sure you'll point at Boston or Oklahoma though.


The point is that IED training is justified for all law enforcement. Basic bomb identification is a necessity for anyone who even could remotely have a chance of encountering one in their job. The rhetoric attached to it and the building it up as a everyday occurrence is a little far fetched (like the need to buy MRAPS). But their still needs to be that training ESPECIALLY around areas that would be targets for such things. 

Of course I would mention those incidents along with the USS Cole and the first WTC bombing and a slew of others. That's the point, it has happened and will happen again its simply a reality of the world we live in. Does it mean that they should have shot that woman? No but as far as I understood you were implying that the police training for IED's was a new thing and was not needed or is a form of militarization and that was wrong on its face. If that was not what was meant by your statement then just ignore me since it was a misreading of intent.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Originally Posted by better-dead-than-fed
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the Founding Fathers were absurd and useless when they killed all those government employees?
> 
> 
> Aren't you personally attacking government employees when you say they should be murdered?


Actually I didn't say anyone should be murdered; but are you saying that the Founding Fathers were absurd and useless when they killed all those government employees?

----------


## Brett85

> Actually I didn't say anyone should be murdered; but are you saying that the Founding Fathers were absurd and useless when they killed all those government employees?


I don't recall the founding fathers ever trying to overthrow the U.S government.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Originally Posted by better-dead-than-fed
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the Founding Fathers were absurd and useless when they killed all those government employees?
> 
> 
> you threaten to murder government employees.


I don't, and what you quoted is protected under the 1st Amendment -- something traditional conservatives have a hard time comprehending.

----------


## Ranger29860

> Actually I didn't say anyone should be murdered; but are you saying that the Founding Fathers were absurd and useless when they killed all those government employees?


God I am tired of this element on these forums. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what is being heavily implied here, along with you posting record it is very clear to me what you meant. You are inciting violence simple as that.

----------


## tod evans

> The point is that IED training is justified for all law enforcement. Basic bomb identification is a necessity for anyone who even could remotely have a chance of encountering one in their job.


The idea of training "law enforcement" in any more than identification really scares me.

Knowledge provided to LEOs is misused way too often for me to feel comfortable knowing government has trained some of these folks in the construction of an antipersonnel device.

The ability to disarm requires the knowledge of construction....

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Post a link to where I did that? Or are you just being delusional, like the times you insanely accused me of being Dave Goetze?


Already done it 100 times, your process is to ignore it and demand more proof.  Which in and of itself is a sophistic technique.  Besides, I am not a petty vindictive clown who keeps files on my 'opponents.'  So thanks, but no thanks.  You can be the guy posting crap from forever ago to try and stain the people you don't like.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I don't recall the founding fathers ever trying to overthrow the U.S government.


Are you saying the 2nd Amendment is useless and absurd? It certainly contemplates a situation in which citizens would be right to forcefully oppose a ruling regime in the U.S.:




> During the 1788 ratification debates, ... It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.


http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...70581644084946

----------


## Ranger29860

> The idea of training "law enforcement" in any more than identification really scares me.
> 
> Knowledge provided to LEOs is misused way too often for me to feel comfortable knowing government has trained some of these folks in the construction of an antipersonnel device.
> 
> The ability to disarm requires the knowledge of construction....


Most IED training (in the military at least) is based on simply identification and containment not disposal. Of course there needs to be some that know how to dispose them (or at the least tools that can do it like the water cannons).

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Already done it 100 times,


No you didn't. You can lie to the internet, but not to God.

----------


## tod evans

> Most IED training (in the military at least) is based on simply identification and containment not disposal. Of course there needs to be some that know how to dispose them (or at the least tools that can do it like the water cannons).


I understand and agree with "some" knowing how to build/destroy them but heaven forbid every LEO is trained...

----------


## MelissaWV

Boys, boys, you're all pretty.

Unfortunately, this woman's still dead, and now she's become a talking point for "reinstating pay for those heroic men and women."

Also, I hear they need a new car.  Something mysteriously destroyed one and it needs to be replaced.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> God I am tired of this element on these forums. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what is being heavily implied here, along with you posting record it is very clear to me what you meant. You are inciting violence simple as that.


I'm not, and what you quoted is protected under the 1st Amendment -- something you are having a hard time comprehending.

----------


## Ranger29860

> I understand and agree with "some" knowing how to build/destroy them but heaven forbid every LEO is trained...


O I agree 100% I was just responding to someone who I think was saying that IED training is both unnecessary and a new occurance.

----------


## mrsat_98

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...HzE9ie-M8#t=54

I call this murder. I don't care what she did if they took the time to get the baby out without subduing her, and then shot her its murder pure and simple.

----------


## Ranger29860

> I'm not, and what you quoted is protected under the 1st Amendment -- something you are having a hard time comprehending.


Never said it wasn't (supreme court backed up the fact that speech that incites violence is protected Brandenburg v. Ohio). But that does not mean your not inciting violence, because you clearly are.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Aren't you personally attacking government employees when you say they should be murdered?


Do you think I'm threatening government employees with the statements that I make?  Do you believe I'm a threat to murder anyone?




> It's hard for me to believe that you're "not guilty" when you threaten to murder government employees.


I don't really know who he's talking about, but schoolchildren are clearly innocent.  Not every government employee is (Lest anyone misread this, I am not saying that every government employee deserves to die.)




> I don't recall the founding fathers ever trying to overthrow the U.S government.


Do you really think they wouldn't if they were alive today?  You don't give Washington and Jefferson enough credit.  I think even Hamilton and Adams would be shocked at the monstrosity we have today.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Never said it wasn't (supreme court backed up the fact that speech that incites violence is protected Brandenburg v. Ohio). But that does not mean your not inciting violence, because you clearly are.


If I what I wrote is "inciting", then the 2nd Amendment itself is "inciting".

----------


## Brett85

> Do you think I'm threatening government employees with the statements that I make?  Do you believe I'm a threat to murder anyone?


I thought his quote was worse than your quotes.  He was actually replying to your comment when he made that comment, criticizing you for saying that you wouldn't support murdering government employees.

----------


## mrsat_98

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...HzE9ie-M8#t=54
> 
> I call this murder. I don't care what she did if they took the time to get the baby out without subduing her, and then shot her its murder pure and simple.


One more time.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I thought his quote was worse than your quotes.  He was actually replying to your comment when he made that comment, criticizing you for saying that you wouldn't support murdering government employees.


Are you saying that you oppose the 2nd Amendment and support tyranny (as long as the tyrants have American flags on their uniforms), because it seems like you are.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I thought his quote was worse than your quotes.  He was actually replying to your comment when he made that comment, criticizing you for saying that you wouldn't support murdering government employees.


I have to look this up again...

Let me clear this up again.

I'm a Christian.  As a Christian, I don't believe its my job, or the job of any other Christian, to take unilateral revenge on anyone, as per Romans 12.  I don't think defensive force is wrong, even against government employees when appropriate (I do, of course, think that sometimes such violence is inadvisable, or harmful to the Body of Christ [Which I think is part of the point of 1 Peter 2:13-17]) but I would not say that defensive violence is wrong.  I don't believe its wrong for an entire community to hold an individual accountable even without the authority of any particular "State" but I don't think we should just be unilaterally running around exacting revenge.

That said, as a libertarian, I absolutely do believe that there are certain people in the State who have committed crimes sufficiently to warrant the death penalty.  If a person were to exercise vigilante justice against such a person, I would say that he is well within his rights under a libertarian legal framework to do so, and I would not support his being prosecuted for doing so, even in a case where as a Christian I might advise "Turning the other cheek."

----------


## MelissaWV

> One more time.


Yeah they've officially stopped paying attention.

Figuring out which one can pee farther is very important.

For what it's worth, I read your post.  I did not have time to watch the video yet, but the title seems to suggest it's an interview with a witness.  I will take that with a grain of salt and hope it's just not true.  That would be a new low.

----------


## mrsat_98

> Yeah they've officially stopped paying attention.
> 
> Figuring out which one can pee farther is very important.
> 
> For what it's worth, I read your post.  I did not have time to watch the video yet, but the title seems to suggest it's an interview with a witness.  I will take that with a grain of salt and hope it's just not true.  That would be a new low.


It is an eye and ear witness.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Yeah they've officially stopped paying attention.
> 
> Figuring out which one can pee farther is very important.
> 
> For what it's worth, I read your post.  I did not have time to watch the video yet, but the title seems to suggest it's an interview with a witness.  I will take that with a grain of salt and hope it's just not true.  That would be a new low.


They are too busy spitting on the 1st and 2nd Amendments and Thomas Jefferson to pay attention.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Are you saying that the Founding Fathers were absurd and useless when they killed all those government employees?


No, but it would be useless for me to just unilaterally go and shoot  the President.  Yes, he'd deserve it, but it wouldn't actually help to advance the cause of liberty, it would just make the liberty movement look like terrorists, not to mention the fact that, as a Christian, its not my place to run around performing unilateral  vigilante justice on people.

The Founders did it the way they should be done.  The colonies, as a group, organized together and overthrew the oppressive government around their neck when the time was right.

I honestly don't know what we have now.  Our country is far more brainwashed than the colonies ever were, and our government is far more oppressive.  I don't know what the right solution to any of this is.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I thought his quote was worse than your quotes.  He was actually replying to your comment when he made that comment, criticizing you for saying that you wouldn't support murdering government employees.


OK, I just figured out that he was replying to me, and I replied to him.

I was beginning to wonder if I was the most radical person here.  Guess not

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I was beginning to wonder if I was the most radical person here.


You are more like Mother-Theresa / Ghandi "radical".




> it would be useless for me to just unilaterally go and shoot the President.


Perhaps.




> it wouldn't actually help to advance the cause of liberty, it would just make the liberty movement look like terrorists,


I wouldn't have a problem with being called a terrorist per se -- I've been called worse, and yet I feel no remorse -- but your point about effectiveness seems valid to me.




> The Founders did it the way they should be done.  The colonies, as a group, organized together and overthrew the oppressive government around their neck when the time was right.


Not possible in this era.




> I honestly don't know what we have now.  Our country is far more brainwashed than the colonies ever were, and our government is far more oppressive.  I don't know what the right solution to any of this is.


The 2nd Amendment does contemplate a situation where freedom would have to be fought for against a tyrannical majority. When Jefferson said it's takes blood to refresh the tree of liberty, he meant blood, not petitions and voting.

Anyway, thank you for answering my question about your earlier statement.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I think even Hamilton and Adams would be shocked at the monstrosity we have today.


Hamilton might be shocked - but he would be even more delighted.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> God I am tired of this element on these forums.


Cry it out?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You are more like Mother-Theresa / Ghandi "radical".


Not really.  I'm not saying I'd never fight.  I'm just not going to go uselessly assassinate someone and ruin my own life for kicks.  Better to educate people.  If someone takes our principles to the conclusion of killing someone who deserves to die, I'll shrug.




> I wouldn't have a problem with being called a terrorist per se -- I've been called worse, and yet I feel no remorse -- but your point about effectiveness seems valid to me.


I don't have a problem with it in that... its not that it offends me or that I'm worried about what other people think for its own sake.  I'm a little worried about torpedoing the movement.





> Not possible in this era.


Why?  I don't necessarily disagree, but why?  And if you hold to this, what's the point of assassination again?




> The 2nd Amendment does contemplate a situation where freedom would have to be fought for against a tyrannical majority. When Jefferson said it's takes blood to refresh the tree of liberty, he meant blood, not petitions and voting.


I completely agree.  But unilateral action is not going to work in that regard.  That's all I'm saying.



> Anyway, thank you for answering my question about your earlier statement.


No problem. 

BTW: Thomas Jefferson is a hero of mine.  he was a little mediocre in the White House, but he was great before and after that.




> Hamilton might be shocked - but he would be even more delighted.


Do you think so?  I mean, I know he was a tyrant, but to this degree?  I remember Tom Dilorenzo pointing out that even Hamilton would never have supported Lincoln's tyranny one time, would you disagree with Dilorenzo's assessment?

----------


## WM_in_MO

> One more time.


Thanks for sharing, part of me wishes the woman is recalling things incorrectly but I know deep down that they simply murder anyone who does not comply.

----------


## Ender

> To be fair though, a claim made by Beck would be a stereotypical statement based on certain voices within the movement that he uses to paint all members as like that. While some of the things I have seen on here would be where those claims came from. I'm not calling anyone out by name here since it would muddle the issue but. When people post things like all cops should be killed, all military members are child killers, and that we should "get a rope" along with cheering shootings (to be fair I haven't seen that lately)and encouraging people to shoot cops or trying to rile people up to do something (violent) it does cause me some concern about the safety of both that person saying it and those around them. Now it is the internet and most people who say things like that wont ever do something but it still doesn't sit right with me.



The claim made by Beck was after the Nov 5th Money Bomb; Beck made the claim that all RP supporters were terrorists because of a very successful money "bomb" done on Guy Falkes Day. This started the whole "RP supporters are bad people" publicity and pretty much ruined Ron in the MSM.

Once RP was no longer a political threat, Beck became friendly again.

----------


## DGambler

> O I agree 100% I was just responding to someone who I think was saying that IED training is both unnecessary and a new occurance.


I'm mobile and can't look it up, someone was implying in this thread that the police were justified in killing this woman because she might have an IED, I was trying to state that it isn't that common of an occurrence and shouldn't be used as an excuse. We misunderstood each other, sorry for lashing out at you.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I will be the first to go if we start getting banned purely based on personal baggage.


I will be right behind you.

----------


## DGambler

> I will be right behind you.


Drop me a note on the destination, don't leave a man behind.

----------


## MelissaWV

> I'm mobile and can't look it up, someone was implying in this thread that the police were justified in killing this woman because she might have an IED, I was trying to state that it isn't that common of an occurrence and shouldn't be used as an excuse. We misunderstood each other, sorry for lashing out at you.


Very early in this and other threads, one of the contentions was that she might have explosives.  I think that is completely defused by the fact that the cops got close enough to stick their hands in the window.  You don't usually do that to a vehicle you think is going to explode or might be full of dangerous people.

----------


## 69360

> I will be right behind you.


You haven't weren't threatening to kill anyone, doesn't apply to you.




> Very early in this and other threads, one of the contentions was that she might have explosives.  I think that is completely defused by the fact that the cops got close enough to stick their hands in the window.  You don't usually do that to a vehicle you think is going to explode or might be full of dangerous people.


But those guys were secret service, they are supposed to be willing to die to protect the president, no?

----------


## MelissaWV

> You haven't weren't threatening to kill anyone, doesn't apply to you.
> 
> 
> 
> But those guys were secret service, they are supposed to be willing to die to protect the president, no?


You mean the guys in this photo?  The ones in DC police uniforms, and driving vehicles that say "POLICE" on the side?  The Secret Service is getting very sneaky, especially the way they are defending the President near the Botanical Gardens.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You haven't weren't threatening to kill anyone, doesn't apply to you.


I can imagine AF fighting if he had to.  You, on the other hand, would pledge your allegiance.

----------


## 69360

> I can imagine AF fighting if he had to.  You, on the other hand, would pledge your allegiance.


Wrong, I'd leave.

----------


## 69360

> You mean the guys in this photo?  The ones in DC police uniforms, and driving vehicles that say "POLICE" on the side?  The Secret Service is getting very sneaky, especially the way they are defending the President near the Botanical Gardens.


I was talking about at the WH gates, this whole incident is so confusing what with the multiple locations.

----------


## MelissaWV

> I was talking about at the WH gates, this whole incident is so confusing what with the multiple locations.


I think it is deliberately being done that way by the media at all levels; no problem.  There are three distinct sites:

1. "White House gates" which is a bit of a misnomer because the White House has a series of yards.  This woman was not trying to crash through the front gate or anything, which is what the initial reports seemed to indicate.  It was a corner/side sort of barricade that leads to a stretch of lawn that eventually leads to the White House.

2. Botanical Gardens area, which is where the video/photos of her being boxed in are from.  This is also where I keep saying the cop stuck his hand in through her open window, and where they had a very easy chance to disable her vehicle or block it in.  Instead, when she pulls away at high speed, they shoot at her in a reckless manner.

This is what I was referring to in my post about explosives.  If you believe, at this point, that you have a hostile person with bombs or guns or hostages or drugs or whatever, you don't get that close without protective gear.  It doesn't look like they were that afraid of those things, only of a woman driving a car who was obviously not in her right mind.  The prudent thing to do there is to disable the car.  That's why it's such a headscratcher to me.

3. The end of the chase, where she is boxed in between barricades and jumped a curb.  There are photos from this, but very little video online (even though there was live video being taken by most of the big networks that showed the little girl being "rescued."  This is also the area where the brilliant policeman drove over the rising barrier and managed to demolish his vehicle.

Hope that helps a little

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> That's why there's going to be an investigation of this incident,* like there always is.*  It's not like it's just being ignored.


This is why people don't take you seriously.

You have been here for three years and _this_ is what you say?

----------


## chudrockz

> Wrong, I'd leave.


I think you'd just get paid double overtime myself.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Wrong, I'd leave.


Not likely when everything is locked down.

The time is rapidly approaching where everybody will have to make a choice:

Comply or Die.

----------


## amy31416

> It is an eye and ear witness.


You have anything that isn't a video? I can't watch them.

----------


## Brett85

> This is why people don't take you seriously.
> 
> You have been here for three years and _this_ is what you say?


You can think what you want.  I am almost beyond repute, despite being a "radical statist, cop worshipping, lover of government."

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> You can think what you want.  I am almost beyond repute, despite being a "radical statist, cop worshipping, lover of government."


Cool.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> You have anything that isn't a video? I can't watch them.


Pretty much the witness said that the baby was removed from the car and then that is when the shots occurred.

----------


## Brett85

> Cool.


At least we both like the Chiefs.

----------


## 2young2vote

I wonder if there would have been a dangerous high speed chase if the cops hadn't been chasing her...

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> You haven't weren't threatening to kill anyone, doesn't apply to you.


You're flattering me, but you're still conflating conviction with guilt, you're conflating crime with dangerousness, and you're up against forum guidelines which prohibit your conduct more than mine.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Why?  I don't necessarily disagree, but why?


I'll get back to you about this.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> For at least 60 years, the police have always been 'investigated' to a different standard than regular citizens.


How did you arrive at the figure "60"?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> It's hard for me to believe that you're "not guilty"....


So much for your understanding of facts and law.




> Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom
> 
> 
> For at least 60 years, the police have always been 'investigated' to a different standard than regular citizens....
> 
> 
> Then what do you think is the solution to that problem?


Keep holding government employees to a different standard, and reap what you sow.




> Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously.... Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.


http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...44660194763070

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You can think what you want.  I am almost beyond repute, despite being a "radical statist, cop worshipping, lover of government."


People here would probably love you if you actually went into politics

I don't see why your reputation matters here.  Good posters can sometimes be naive about certain things.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No you didn't. You can lie to the internet, but not to God.


I listened to gospel bagpipes all day long.  

Interesting story, one of the more influential people, and the best friend ever to know in North Carolina politics, Gunny Claudia Rodgers, passed away on Thursday.

Gunny Rodgers served from cradle to grave, ever in pursuit of America, and freedom.

She served by grit and determination every moment of her life, and I know none more right for Semper Fidelis, Marine.  She passed away in the arms of Christ, laid down and just let go.

She worked until the very end, connecting people together she knew to be right for freedom.

And her favorite kind of music was bagpipes.  So we played gospel bagpipes in the background.

It was beautiful!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> How did you arrive at the figure "60"?


By generations.  Beat Generation, Baby Boomers, Generation X.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Not likely when everything is locked down.
> 
> The time is rapidly approaching where everybody will have to make a choice:
> 
> Comply or Die.


Shelter In Place.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> To be fair though, a claim made by Beck would be a stereotypical statement based on certain voices within the movement that he uses to paint all members as like that. While some of the things I have seen on here would be where those claims came from. I'm not calling anyone out by name here since it would muddle the issue but. When people post things like all cops should be killed, all military members are child killers, and that we should "get a rope" along with cheering shootings (to be fair I haven't seen that lately)and encouraging people to shoot cops or trying to rile people up to do something (violent) it does cause me some concern about the safety of both that person saying it and those around them. Now it is the internet and most people who say things like that wont ever do something but it still doesn't sit right with me.


Whenever you allow a free market of ideas, you will always have your marketplaces tested by the outrageous.  The media takes advantage of the very freedoms we advocate for against us to point out our fringes.

A friend of mine in the house was once poking fun at the Paul fringes aside on the floor, a great guy a little slow sometimes, and so I asked him, "so how many of your people are angry about the chemtrails and such?" His eyes crossed a bit as he laughed and then he went back to his seat.

OMG! if we had freedom people could say _anything!!

_If that anything is really frightening, then society will censor speech by internal pressure, so you the government doesn't have to compel it.  _Vendetta_ was a liberty anthem, and so we were painted as Guy Fawkes in waiting.  It takes real construction to do that.  Orwell is a scholar that America needs to hear.

And then of course the free radicals testing you for hypocrisy.  Cutting into the edges of the free market of ideas.  Where video games blend into the Internet and a cyberverse emerges, radical speech really does exist all over the place.  You don't even have to look very hard.  I have actually warned a few groups that internet history standards would have to relax into the next several decades or we will only ever elect idiots.  Reason being the vast majority of able people are leaving an indelible trail; and every human makes mistakes or walks down a blind trail.

----------


## donnay

> I listened to gospel bagpipes all day long.  
> 
> Interesting story, one of the more influential people, and the best friend ever to know in North Carolina politics, Gunny Claudia Rodgers, passed away on Thursday.
> 
> Gunny Rodgers served from cradle to grave, ever in pursuit of America, and freedom.
> 
> She served by grit and determination every moment of her life, and I know none more right for Semper Fidelis, Marine.  She passed away in the arms of Christ, laid down and just let go.
> 
> She worked until the very end, connecting people together she knew to be right for freedom.
> ...



I never met Claudia Rodgers, but I know she was a woman who loved her country and cared about her countrymen and wanted true justice to be served.  May she RIP and her spirit forever live on!


ETA:  For Claudia's courage, I would give her standing ovation!

----------


## green73

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...HzE9ie-M8#t=54
> 
> I call this murder. I don't care what she did if they took the time to get the baby out without subduing her, and then shot her its murder pure and simple.





> One more time.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGHzE9ie-M8

----------


## MelissaWV

That is still a really weird interview.  She says shots were fired, child was removed, more shots were fired, someone (only the mother remained) got out, then people rushed in.  Then later she says when she heard gunshots she backed away from the window (so she how'd she see all of this?).  She also mentions the guard on the corner "guards her every day" and that they ran downstairs to ask the police what to do to be safer.

I'm not going to hang my hat on anything contained in this woman's account.

----------


## 69360

> Not likely when everything is locked down.
> 
> The time is rapidly approaching where everybody will have to make a choice:
> 
> Comply or Die.


Good luck with closing the Maine/Canada border. You can walk, boat and even some places drive into Canada right now without anybody noticing or caring. That's not going to change if shtf, nobody in the rest of the country is going to care much about us up here. I'd say we would be on our own and do just fine.

If I had to get out to Canada, it's not a place I'd stay but would be easy enough to move on to a 3rd country.

----------


## enhanced_deficit



----------


## kahless

> 


Cowards committing a cowardly act. The same can be said for those clapping pussies in Congress.

----------


## phill4paul

Amazing. After 3 days we know EVERYTHING about Miriam Carries mental health back ground yet we still do not know whether she was in the vehicle or outside of it as the shooting occurred.

----------


## tod evans

I want to know about the shooters mental health.

----------


## green73

*Use of force to be studied in DC police chase* 




> WASHINGTON (AP) -- Police in Washington are reviewing the use of officers' deadly force in the killing of a woman who tried to ram her car through a White House barrier, a shooting her family says was unjustified.
> 
> The investigation will reconstruct the car chase and shooting, which briefly put the U.S. Capitol on lockdown, and explore how officers dealt with the driver and whether protocols were followed.
> 
> Senate Sergeant at Arms Terrance Gainer said he was confident the officers "did the best they could under the situation." Police guarding national landmarks must make fast decisions without the luxury of all the facts, especially when a threat is perceived, he said.
> 
> "This is not a routine highway or city traffic stop. It is simply not that," Gainer said Saturday. "The milieu under which we're operating at the United States Capitol and I suspect at the White House and at icons up in New York is an anti-terrorism approach, and that is a difference with a huge, huge distinction."
> 
> Capitol Police Chief Kim Dine said that while the shooting remains under investigation, he was proud of his officers' "heroic" response and their overall efforts in protecting the Capitol campus and keeping it open for visitors.


cont
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...10-05-23-48-57

----------


## MelissaWV

> Police in Washington are reviewing the use of officers' deadly force in the killing of a woman who tried to ram her car through a White House barrier, a shooting her family says was unjustified.


Oh look.  Days later, it is no longer "she rammed" it is "she tried to ram."




> "This is not a routine highway or city traffic stop. It is simply not that," Gainer said Saturday. "The milieu under which we're operating at the United States Capitol and I suspect at the White House and at icons up in New York is *an anti-terrorism approach*, and that is a difference with a huge, huge distinction."
> 
> Capitol Police Chief Kim Dine said that while the shooting remains under investigation, he was proud of his officers' "heroic" response and their *overall efforts in protecting the Capitol campus and keeping it open for visitors.*


Once again (broken record, sorry!) if they were so afraid that this was a terrorist situation, why didn't they evacuate and assist all those civilians in the area?  Why did they stick their hand into the car?  How about those two bolded sections for logic....

----------


## Anti Federalist

> "This is not a routine highway or city traffic stop. It is simply not that," Gainer said Saturday. "The milieu under which we're operating at the United States Capitol and I suspect at the White House and at icons up in New York is an anti-terrorism approach, and that is a difference with a huge, huge distinction."


No, of course it's not.

Welcome to Fallujah.

----------


## DGambler

> No, of course it's not.
> 
> Welcome to Fallujah.


Different rules for the anointed ones.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom
> 
> 
> The whole point to a republican form of government is that everybody from the President to the plumber is held to the *same standard of law*.
> 
> 
> That's why there's going to be an investigation of this incident, like there always is.  It's not like it's just being ignored.


They're investigating "whether protocols were followed" instead of investigating whether there's probable cause the police committed a crime. That's not holding police to the "same standard of law".




> Originally Posted by AP
> 
> The investigation will reconstruct the car chase and shooting, which briefly put the U.S. Capitol on lockdown, and explore how officers dealt with the driver and *whether protocols were followed*.
> 
> 
> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...10-05-23-48-57


This double standard breeds disrespect for law, and that imperils the security which the government cheerleaders here worship above all. The double standard also subverts the constitutional order, and that invites forceful resistance against the ruling regime under the 2nd Amendment.

----------


## phill4paul

Instead of God sorting things how about.......Kill them all....Let investigative services sort it out.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You can think what you want.  I am almost beyond repute, despite being a "radical statist, cop worshipping, lover of government."


You should know people here don't give any credence to the fact that there's going to be an "investigation".  I think most of us already know what's going to turn up in that investigation... absolutely freaking nothing.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You should know people here don't give any credence to the fact that there's going to be an "investigation".  I think most of us already know what's going to turn up in that investigation... absolutely freaking nothing.


Apparently at least one person here does

(To clarify, its not me.  I give absolutely no credence to it)

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

I will say that the pigs are being gathered for some very long meetings at this time.  Each will give his account individually and in one big meeting.  They will discuss it back and forth.  The skilled handlers of the meetings will then consolidate the views.   They will use leading questions that create a group consensus and leave out the views that appear to be at the ends of the bell curve.  These questions often deal with time and space, but there area also many other factors.  Doubts will be erased with group thinking. They will select the views most favorable to the entire department and further consolidate those.  

The result will be a consensus view that will now becomes the official story of each individual involved.  Each individual will not present his perspective as he actually saw and remembered it, but the perspective will be based upon what was agreed in the consensus.

If people really want to know how substantial, but subtle and insidious, _conspiracies_ work, then this is it.  It is _coaching_ that leads to a consensus views and justifications.  The safeguard in this technique is very calculated.  It is social-psychological.  The technique means that no one is likely to spill the beans or reveal anything that unravels the larger scale schemes that almost always go awry and get revealed.  A psychological explanation (justification) has now been officially created, one that will become increasingly cemented in the minds as time passes.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

So the 'thank you button' brigade took Sun off.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

..

----------


## Anti Federalist

That's a keeper.

+rep

Best explanation of how a conspiracy stays hidden that I've read.




> I will say that the pigs are being gathered for some very long meetings at this time.  Each will give his account individually and in one big meeting.  They will discuss it back and forth.  The skilled handlers of the meetings will then consolidate the views.   They will use leading questions that create a group consensus and leave out the views that appear to be at the ends of the bell curve.  These questions often deal with time and space, but there area also many other factors.  Doubts will be erased with group thinking. They will select the views most favorable to the entire department and further consolidate those.  
> 
> The result will be a consensus view that will now becomes the official story of each individual involved.  Each individual will not present his perspective as he actually saw and remembered it, but the perspective will be based upon what was agreed in the consensus.
> 
> If people really want to know how substantial, but subtle and insidious, _conspiracies_ work, then this is it.  It is _coaching_ that leads to a consensus views and justifications.  The safeguard in this technique is very calculated.  It is social-psychological.  The technique means that no one is likely to spill the beans or reveal anything that unravels the larger scale schemes that almost always go awry and get revealed.  A psychological explanation (justification) has now been officially created, one that will become increasingly cemented in the minds as time passes.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> That's a keeper.
> 
> +rep
> 
> Best explanation of how a conspiracy stays hidden that I've read.



Thanks for the compliment.  It was really just a long-winded way of saying they need to get their bogus stories straight.

And why not speak of conspiracies, and why this one is not likely to be revealed.  I think there are several elements that determine whether or not a conspiracy is discovered.  Size and number involved is obvious.  Larger conspiracies just don't stay hidden.  Four people meeting on a Tuesday morning have a much better chance of keeping a secret, but even that can be a stretch.

Another important element is overcoming the lying barrier.  Watergate is, arguably, the most damning conspiracy in our history.  That conspiracy was just too large and disjointed to stay hidden.  It's true that the Watergate situation was a different variety than these cops; however, there was no one skilled enough in Watergate to consolidate the lies into some type of effective psychological justification.

Perhaps the most important element is the glue, articulated by everyone who has a deep and vested interest.  The glue did not exist in Watergate because the best thing driving the action among many was this abstract belief that the country would somehow benefit.  It eventually became more important for each player to save himself rather than some vague notion.

The glue is the strong element that the police have in this case.  Their occupational bond is, arguably, stronger than that of politicians.  Each one involved in the murder of that woman can individually justify his belief based on his training (read: job justification) and experience.  All it takes is a skilled handler to consolidate their biased beliefs and eliminate any doubts interfering with conscience.  The police are also closer to the judicial system than legislative politicians, so they have the benefit of that bond.  The We vs. They mentality might also be stronger than it's ever been in this country.  

Good luck trying to discipline these pigs based on policy, let alone any criminal charges.  The only thing that would help is some really incontrovertible and damning video, but even that would be a toss-up.  

Well, okay, that's enough rambling.  Don't mean to try to sound like some professor.  Just my observation.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Now that I read that post--it looks like I got longwinded again.  A shorter version would be to just say that it's all bull$#@!.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

They can and should be held accountable.

PS: Did they get return and get refund on 'thank you' buttons yet?

----------


## osan

> *Meet Miriam Carey, the dental assistant summarily executed by Capitol Hill police*
> 
> Connor Adams Sheets
> International Business Times
> Fri, 04 Oct 2013 05:06 CDT
> 
> 
> Miriam Carey (right), is the woman identified in news reports as the shot to death in front of her daughter by Capitol Hill police on Thursday afternoon. This photo is from a newsletter announcing her having been hired as a hygenist at a Connecticut periodontics practice.


I am outraged by this!  OUTRAGED, I say!  I demand that...

..._Eh?_ What?  She's a _what?

_Oh... um... never mind folks, nothing to see here... move along...  I SAID move along!

Good job boys... can't have them damn Knee Grows mucking things up and scaring us like that...

----------


## osan

> I will say that the pigs are being gathered for some very long meetings at this time.  Each will give his account individually and in one big meeting.  They will discuss it back and forth.  The skilled handlers of the meetings will then consolidate the views.   They will use leading questions that create a group consensus and leave out the views that appear to be at the ends of the bell curve.  These questions often deal with time and space, but there area also many other factors.  Doubts will be erased with group thinking. They will select the views most favorable to the entire department and further consolidate those.  
> 
> The result will be a consensus view that will now becomes the official story of each individual involved.  Each individual will not present his perspective as he actually saw and remembered it, but the perspective will be based upon what was agreed in the consensus.
> 
> If people really want to know how substantial, but subtle and insidious, _conspiracies_ work, then this is it.  It is _coaching_ that leads to a consensus views and justifications.  The safeguard in this technique is very calculated.  It is social-psychological.  The technique means that no one is likely to spill the beans or reveal anything that unravels the larger scale schemes that almost always go awry and get revealed.  A psychological explanation (justification) has now been officially created, one that will become increasingly cemented in the minds as time passes.


_Very_ good.

You been channeling me?

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Media neocons continue to push headlines in fail attempt to paint her as "suspected terrorist":



> *
> Miriam Carey's lockbox held passport, foreign currency*
> October 8, 2013 - 01:46 pm
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) - Police found no weapon or evidence of motive while searching the car of a Connecticut woman who was fatally shot by police after trying to ram her vehicle through a White House barrier, according to court documents unsealed Tuesday.
> 
> * Carey's sister says, 'Shame on D.C. police'*
> 
> Search warrant results show police who inspected a lockbox inside Miriam Carey's black Infiniti found a passport, foreign currency, a driver's license and social security cards for her and her daughter. Other items include keys, hospital discharge documents, a lease agreement for a New York City apartment and an uncashed check for about $1,800.


Read more: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/10...ncy-95059.html

----------


## enhanced_deficit

*Capitol Shooting: Miriam Carey's sister says, 'Shame on D.C. police'*
By Jeesoo Park
October 4, 2013 - 09:38 pm

(WJLA) - At approximately 11:10 p.m. on Friday night, Miriam Carey's family spoke publicly with the media in front of a home in Brooklyn for the first time since the Capitol car chase and the death of Carey that resulted.

Earlier in the day, the AP reported that Miriam Carey's sister Amy Carey-Jones said on CNN there should have been "another way instead of shooting and killing an individual." Her sister Valerie Carey added that she "did not deserve to have her life cut down" at age 34.

They emphasized on Friday night that they found out about what was happening at the same time the rest of the world was finding out, when they received calls telling them to turn on their televisions.

*"Shame on Metropolitan D.C. Police," said Carey's sister.*

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> What I am saying is that we do not have all the facts yet...


Was curious, do you believe all the facts are out by now or it may take more time before they come out?

----------


## pcosmar

> Now that I read that post--it looks like I got longwinded again.  A shorter version would be to just say that it's all bull$#@!.


But a good as any explanation for bull$#@!.

Which is also a good explanation why *Police* should not exist.

Police are  control. And I find the idea that I/We need to be *Controlled*,,, repulsive.

The very concept of Police should not exist in free society,, beyond people policing themselves.

----------


## pcosmar

> "What I am saying is that we do not have all the facts yet ,,,,"


I hear that often repeated when there are real questions about sacred cows.

----------


## pcosmar

> "What I am saying is that we do not have all the facts yet ,,,,"


And I doubt we ever will this side of heaven,,,
But we do have to call things as we see them,, and hopefully to "judge righteously".

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> And I doubt we ever will this side of heaven,,,
> But we do have to call things as we see them,, and hopefully to "judge righteously".


This.

----------


## libertygold

Way too trigger happy.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> But a good as any explanation for bull$#@!.
> 
> Which is also a good explanation why *Police* should not exist.
> 
> Police are  control. And I find the idea that I/We need to be *Controlled*,,, repulsive.
> 
> The very concept of Police should not exist in free society,, beyond people policing themselves.


I wish we could get everyone on RPFs to agree with you and I on this.  It's something that seems should be easily understood/appreciated by everyone. :/

----------


## Anti Federalist

No problem.

Watergate?

The Watergate conspiracy would have been pulled off today, between the government press and compliant populace.




> Thanks for the compliment.  It was really just a long-winded way of saying they need to get their bogus stories straight.
> 
> And why not speak of conspiracies, and why this one is not likely to be revealed.  I think there are several elements that determine whether or not a conspiracy is discovered.  Size and number involved is obvious.  Larger conspiracies just don't stay hidden.  Four people meeting on a Tuesday morning have a much better chance of keeping a secret, but even that can be a stretch.
> 
> Another important element is overcoming the lying barrier.  Watergate is, arguably, the most damning conspiracy in our history.  That conspiracy was just too large and disjointed to stay hidden.  It's true that the Watergate situation was a different variety than these cops; however, there was no one skilled enough in Watergate to consolidate the lies into some type of effective psychological justification.
> 
> Perhaps the most important element is the glue, articulated by everyone who has a deep and vested interest.  The glue did not exist in Watergate because the best thing driving the action among many was this abstract belief that the country would somehow benefit.  It eventually became more important for each player to save himself rather than some vague notion.
> 
> The glue is the strong element that the police have in this case.  Their occupational bond is, arguably, stronger than that of politicians.  Each one involved in the murder of that woman can individually justify his belief based on his training (read: job justification) and experience.  All it takes is a skilled handler to consolidate their biased beliefs and eliminate any doubts interfering with conscience.  The police are also closer to the judicial system than legislative politicians, so they have the benefit of that bond.  The We vs. They mentality might also be stronger than it's ever been in this country.  
> ...

----------


## Anti Federalist

Miserable Congress Sluts bump

----------


## DamianTV

> Miserable Congress Sluts bump


my turn.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Today at SOTU, Congress has an opportunity to give a standing apology to family of Miriam Carey to take a small step towards acknowledging their massive blunder.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Today at SOTU, Congress has an opportunity to give a standing apology to family of Miriam Carey to take a small step towards acknowledging their massive blunder.


Waiting...waiting...waiting...oh $#@!, did I miss it?

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> Waiting...waiting...waiting...oh $#@!, did I miss it?


Political slaves/tools/prostitutes do not have soul or conscience... so there may be long wait.

( no offense to everyday prostitutes who just sell their bodies for eceonomic reasons)

----------


## limequat

> Political slaves/tools/prostitutes do not have soul or conscience... so there may be long wait.
> 
> ( no offense to everyday prostitutes who just sell their bodies for eceonomic reasons)


Lumping upstanding, duly-elected public officials with street whores is offensive.  

To street whores.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

You said it better.

----------


## phill4paul

Waiting for a release of all the surveillance video. Still.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Waiting for a release of all the surveillance video. Still.


Hope you're not holding your breath.

----------


## phill4paul

> Hope you're not holding your breath.


  Lol. No.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> Waiting for a release of all the surveillance video. Still.


patience.

----------


## green73

Family seeking $75 million

http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/u-s-sued-...s-d-c-killing/

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> Family seeking $75 million
> 
> http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/u-s-sued-...s-d-c-killing/



Interesting development.

By the way this is same lawyer fioling suit who was arrested after his TV interviews about Miriam's killing.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

*Ex-NYPD cop hunts for truth on mom slaying*Jan 29, 2014

The mystery is why Carey was shot to death by U.S. Capitol Police officers .... What about the shooting of Miriam Carey, is there video of that?

----------


## Lucille

After applauding her murder, I can see why.

Congress Takes Hands-Off Approach to Miriam Carey Shooting
http://blogs.rollcall.com/hill-blott...arey-shooting/




> Six months after the shooting, with a wrongful death claim filed against the Capitol Police and Secret Service seeking $75 million in compensation, New York-based attorney Eric Sanders is calling on Congress to “use its legislative powers” to investigate the confusing series of events.
> 
> But spokespeople for the committees with jurisdiction over the Capitol Police and for law enforcement declined to comment, aside from saying there are no plans to investigate because the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia is still looking into the shooting. Members charged with oversight have expressed no interest in launching their own investigation.
> 
> House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa suggested that briefings, “over the shoulder investigation” and monitoring of the Justice Department’s activity might be the most appropriate approach. The California Republican indicated that he still needed to consult with ranking member Elijah E. Cummings, D-Md., on the issue.
> 
> “I’m very reluctant to have Congress intrude while there’s an ongoing investigation,” said Virginia’s Gerald E. Connolly, another Oversight Democrat. He believes Congress needs to let the law enforcement investigations “work their process before we work ours.”

----------


## Anti Federalist

> “I’m very reluctant to have Congress intrude while there’s an ongoing investigation,” said Virginia’s Gerald E. Connolly, another Oversight Democrat. He believes Congress needs to let the law enforcement investigations “work their process before we work ours.”

----------


## AuH20

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-con...y-2836314.html




> Word traveled down the traffic line that the feds had blocked the road just out of Mesquite and were searching vehicles for weapons and cell phones. Cell phones were confiscated and smashed. The people were given a chit for $30.00 redemption value. I left my phone at home.

----------


## Philhelm

If the killing of Miriam Carey got their cocks hard, I wonder what their reactions will be when the feds go for round two against Cliven Bundy.

----------


## AuH20

I'm impressed that Metro PD stood down after BLM requested assistance in quelling the 'riot'. That's a very significant detail.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> After applauding her murder, I can see why.
> 
> Congress Takes Hands-Off Approach to Miriam Carey Shooting
> http://blogs.rollcall.com/hill-blott...arey-shooting/



Interesting.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> Did they applaud before or after they learned the woman was unarmed?


No clear answer still.

----------


## phill4paul

> No clear answer still.


  And probably never will be. RIP Miriam Carey. Down the memory hole.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> And probably never will be. RIP Miriam Carey. Down the memory hole.
> 
> ...


Probably so.

In related news:

*INCREDIBLE: Secret Service watched this woman for months*

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Contrast.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> And probably never will be. RIP Miriam Carey. Down the memory hole.



Congress is on a roll.

*How Congress Helped Create Ferguson’s Militarized Police* 

                                                   Police stand watch as demonstrators protest the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown, on Aug. 13, 2014, in Ferguson, Mo.(Scott Olson/Getty Images)



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        August 14, 2014   Since 2006, the Pentagon has distributed 432 mine-resistant armored  vehicles to local police departments. It has also doled out more than  400 other armored vehicles, 500 aircraft, and 93,000 assault rifles.


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          As _The_ _New York Times_ reported in June, the Defense Department has been making use of unused military equipment by giving it to local precincts.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congr...olice-20140814

----------


## phill4paul

Congressional staff members gather on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Dec. 11, 2014, to raise awareness of the recent killings of black men by police officers, both of which did not result in grand jury indictments. They are joined by Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., second from left. The walkout came as both houses of Congress attempt to pass a spending measure and avert government shutdown. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

----------


## Anti Federalist

$#@!ing hypocrites.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Can this thread be made sticky.

*Related*

*Windows Up, Don't Shoot*



**UN-OFFICIAL* Ferguson hypocritical outrage thread*



*Lawmakers make 'hands up' gesture on House floor*

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                By Lucy McCalmont

                                                                                      12/2/14 7:15 AM EST

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/lawmakers-ferguson-hands-up-113254.html






*Entire House Of Reps Gives Standing Ovation To Cops After Killing Unarmed Mother*


*Lawyer representing family of Miriam Carey arrested*

*Mother killed by Capitol Police was shot in back of head*

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> *She rammed the White House gates* and when approached backed up and sped off toward the Capitol.  I dunno, guys, I don't think this was an example of what you are saying.


That was false reporting , not sure if SWC team was behind that lie.

----------


## Anti Federalist

///

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Location matters when it comes to justice, cops killing fleeing suspects in a regular American city vs in Washington DC:

*Cop who shot fleeing suspect not eligible for lethal injection*

*Cops who shot fleeing suspect eligible for entire House Of Reps' Standing Ovation*

----------


## limequat

The Miriam Carey story is worse than all the other stories in the news currently.  Her baby was in the CAR!!!

----------


## limequat

There is now a gofundme for Miriam's family's legal fund. 
Please consider contributing:
http://www.gofundme.com/qxpd2s

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> There is now a gofundme for Miriam's family's legal fund. 
> Please consider contributing:
> http://www.gofundme.com/qxpd2s


Her family's lawyer was arrested, incredible that this page has not been taken down.

----------


## limequat

So far a total of 19 donations to  the Miriam Carey legal fund.  C'mon RPF, we can do better than this!

http://www.gofundme.com/qxpd2s

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Shot in cold blood.


Another case of gross negligence of psychology reaching back to the 1970's by failing to develop effective mental health care.

Why did psychology not do that?  Psychology did not because the unconscious mind must be treated directly to deeply effect psychology and behaviors.  Why wasn't that done?

Because the church advocates the unconscious is where the devil resides AND government knows, but will not say so, that the unconscious can be very effectively used to create secrecy, more effective than just "making things secret".  

What is not consciously known, is better than secret.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> So far a total of 19 donations to  the Miriam Carey legal fund.  C'mon RPF, we can do better than this!
> 
> http://www.gofundme.com/qxpd2s


Incredible.
In contrast, Ferguson shooting cop's fund had raised over $330k.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> The Miriam Carey story is worse than all the other stories in the news currently.  Her baby was in the CAR!!!


That is true.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

This could lead to a plaque in DC for Miriam Carey someday:



*Ferguson unveils permanent Michael Brown memorial plaque to be  drilled into the road where he was shot dead on the day he would have  turned 19**Michael Brown Sr unveiled steel and gold plaque on what would have been his son's 19th birthday**He acknowledged the makeshift memorial of toys and flowers was a safety hazard and helped to remove it* *The mayor told crowds the plaque will be drilled into the road as they resurface Canfield Drive**Brown was shot dead on August 9 by white police officer Darren Wilson and sparked Black Lives Matter movement*



    Published:   17:04 EST, 20 May 2015   |    Updated:   19:50 EST, 20 May 2015  


 A  permanent plaque has been unveiled to honor Michael Brown, the black  18-year-old who was shot dead by a police officer in Ferguson last  August.
The  steel and gold plate will be drilled into the road on Canfield Drive  where Brown was shot, replacing a makeshift memorial of flowers and  toys, which had become a safety hazard.
It  features an engraving of the teenager in his graduation mortar board,  with a message that his family 'would like the memory of Michael Brown  to be a happy one.' 
The plaque was unveiled by Michael Brown Sr on Wednesday, which would have been his son's 19th birthday.
Scroll down for video 
 


    In memoriam: Michael Brown's father, Michael Brown Sr, unveiled the permanent plaque on Wednesday to honor his killed son




    'There's not a day that goes by that I don't think about my son,' Brown said, on what would have been his son's 19th birthday


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3090031/Ferguson-unveils-permanent-Michael-Brown-memorial-plaque-drilled-road-shot-dead.html

----------


## enhanced_deficit

CBS/APMay 28, 2015, 10:48 AM
*Chicago cops pose with rifles over black man in photo*

*CHICAGO --* A former Chicago  police detective is suing to get his job back after being fired for  posing in a photograph with another officer holding rifles over an  unidentified black man lying on a floor and wearing deer antlers.
The  photograph, which is believed to have been taken between 1999 and 2003,  recently was made public after detective Timothy McDermott filed a  lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court seeking to rejoin the Chicago  Police Department. The photo was discovered during an FBI investigation  into police wrongdoing.
The Chicago Police Board fired McDermott  in October after finding him guilty of bringing discredit on the  department by taking part in the photo, disrespecting or maltreating a  person on or off duty, and unlawful or unnecessary use or display of a  weapon.


Chicago police officers Jerome Finnigan, left, and Timothy McDermott are seen in an undated photo.
                                             Court photo via WBBM-TV                                         
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chicago-...les-black-man/


There seems to be some pretend accountability for the lower ranks here and there.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> *What I am saying is that we do not have all the facts yet* and it looks ridiculous to be calling it MURDER in the thread title.  Just like it looks stupid to be calling everyone who doesn't agree with us 100% a neocon.



Do we have all the facts now or all facts not outed still?

Granted it can take years sometime:


                                                                          May 30 2015, 8:39 pm ET                   

*Photo Raises Doubts About Police Shooting of Jermaine McBean*
by Tracy Connor                 

 
Jermaine  McBean shortly after he was fatally shot by police in Oakland Park,  Fla., on July 31, 2013, while carrying an unloaded air rifle. Police say  he ignored their orders to drop the weapon and was not wearing  headphones; his family's lawyer says this picture, taken by a witness,  shows that was false.Courtesy David Schoen

                                                                                             After Florida police shot Jermaine McBean to  death as he walked home with an unloaded air rifle, they said there was  no reason to believe he did not hear their orders to drop the weapon and  that he pointed it at them. 
                                                                     But a newly emerged photo that shows headphones  in McBean's ears immediately after the 2013 shooting raises questions  about the police version of events, including why the white earbuds were  later found stuffed in the dead computer expert's pocket. 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...phones-n366386

----------


## enhanced_deficit

All eyes on US  Congress if there will be a standing ovation for police of our closest ally:

*A Palestinian Mother of Four, Shot 17 Times for Being a Bad Driver*

              Mahdia Hammad was hurrying home to feed her baby. Border Policemen  signaled her to stop, but she continued to drive, slowly. Then they  sprayed her car with bullets.     

          Gideon Levy
 and Alex Levac                Jan 02, 2016 

       Mourners  pray over the body of Mahdiyah Hammad, a 38-year-old woman, who was  shot dead by Israeli Border Police                      
 *                                                                                    2015: The year of blatant and unapologetic Israeli fascism                                                  *  
                                       Here, next to the house’s  fence, is where the car rolled to a stop after it had continued to move  even though its driver was already dead. And here’s where the Border  Policemen stood as they shot dozens of bullets into her car. It all  happened on this normally quiet residential street at the edge of the  town of Silwad, north of Ramallah. Only the shell casings still  scattered along the side of the road and the fragments of the shattered  windows of the Hyundai Lantra testify mutely to what happened here last  Friday.             

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         This  is where Israeli troops killed Mahdia Hammad, a 40-year-old mother of  four, the youngest a child of 10 months. In Israel it was claimed that  she tried to run over the Border Policemen, who were standing in the  street. Her husband claims that she was an inexperienced driver who was  hurrying home to feed their son and was apparently rattled by the sight  of the Israeli force and lost her head. One way or the other, nothing  can explain the rage and lust to kill that seized the troops. They  sprayed her car and her body with bullets in a frenzy of shooting that  continued even after she was dead.             

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.694876

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Do we have all the facts now or all facts not outed still?
> 
> Granted it can take years sometime:
> 
> 
>                                                                           May 30 2015, 8:39 pm ET                   
> 
> *Photo Raises Doubts About Police Shooting of Jermaine McBean*
> by Tracy Connor                 
> ...


"I just shot this guy in the chest, and now I'm going to step on him in order to bask in the glow of a successful hunt.  I wonder if I can convince a taxidermist to stuff and mount his head for my trophy wall?  Hmmm...."

----------


## enhanced_deficit

If this set a precedence, video of shooting of Miriam Carey could also emerge in US media?





*Alton Sterling shooting: Second video of deadly encounter emerges*
CNN
 - ‎1 hour ago‎



(CNN)  [Breaking news update, published at 9:55 p.m. ET]. Body camera and  dashcam video of the shooting death of Alton Sterling exists, but none  of it is nearly as clear as two bystander videos that have surfaced  since the incident on Tuesday morning, ...

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Are  DC elite police/SS  following different instructions under Trump vs Obama on handling/shooting of suspected White House intruders?






*Suspected White House fence jumper charged with carrying 'dangerous weapon,' seen behind mansion column*
                                                                                                                                                                                             March 11, 2017                                                                                                                                

         Intruder arrested on White House grounds 
               Federal attorneys on Saturday identified the person  who allegedly jumped a White House fence Friday night and got so deep  into the compound that he was seen hiding behind one the mansion’s  column before being apprehended.
                                                                The suspect has been identified as Jonathan Tuan  Tran, 26, of Milpitas, Calif., according the U.S. Attorney's Office and  court documents.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...e-grounds.html


*White House fence jumper roamed grounds for more than 16 minutes*
Washington Post-Mar 17, 2017
A California man carrying Mace roamed for nearly 17 minutes inside the secured White House perimeter before he was taken into custody ...


*Accused White House Fence Jumper Released*

NBC4 Washington-Mar 13, 2017
The California man accused of jumping over the fence around the _White House_ on Friday was released from custody on Monday. News4's ...










In sharp contrast, this unarmed black mother met a very different fate and was shot to death with her daughter sitting besides her after her car  made a wrong U-turn and got too close to the White House barrier:

----------


## phill4paul

> Are  DC elite police/SS  following different instructions under Trump vs Obama on handling/shooting of suspected White House intruders?


  Pretty sure the SS hated Obama too. And his predecessors. Google it. 

  What kind of sane individual wouldn't say to themselves "I've gotta throw my ass in front of a bullet for this self-serving, elitist, $#@! head?"

----------


## CPUd

> Pretty sure the SS hated Obama too. And his predecessors. Google it. 
> 
>   What kind of sane individual wouldn't say to themselves "I've gotta throw my ass in front of a bullet for this self-serving, elitist, $#@! head?"


I'd guess most of them see themselves serving the office and not the man.

----------


## phill4paul

> I'd guess most of them see themselves serving the office and not the man.


  I'm pretty sure at this point they are questioning the office.

----------


## jmdrake

> Are  DC elite police/SS  following different instructions under Trump vs Obama on handling/shooting of suspected White House intruders?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Suspected White House fence jumper charged with carrying 'dangerous weapon,' seen behind mansion column*
>                                                                                                                                                                                              March 11, 2017                                                                                                                                
> ...


Actually there were several incidents when Obama was president of intruders at the Whitehouse that didn't get shot but they were white.  For Obama #blacklivesdontmatter.

----------


## CPUd

This one said he's had enough of this $#@!:




> *Secret Service Director Announces Retirement*
> 
> February 14, 20173:05 PM ET
> 
> 
> Joseph Clancy's retirement from the Secret Service gives President Trump another position to fill.
> 
> The director of the Secret Service is stepping down. Joseph Clancy informed his colleagues of his decision to retire, effective March 4, saying that "for personal reasons, it is time." Clancy, 61, says he wants to spend more time with his family.
> 
> ...


http://www.npr.org/2017/02/14/515225...ces-retirement

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> Actually there were several incidents when Obama was president of intruders at the Whitehouse that didn't get shot but they were white.  For Obama #blacklivesdontmatter.


You are right, I think there were other instances even during Obama presidency when suspects who did not look like Miriam Carey with  more more suspicious intrusions  much closer to the White House were arrested alive. To this day, there are still no answers why Miriam was not arrested but was shot to death.
Then they went after her family's lawyer with a vengeance:

*Lawyer representing family of Miriam Carey arrested*

----------


## Dark_Horse_Rider

Indeed very curious, and why the ritualistic condoning of Miriam's killing on the house floor ?

----------


## unknown

Anyone else find it odd that just as criticism of the police state (spying, checkpoints, militarization, brutality, civil asset forfeitures, SWAT raids etc.) was at an all time high among the Right/Libertarians, BLM conveniently appeared, resulting in unconditional support for the boys in blue.

What happened to BLM anyway?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> What kind of sane individual wouldn't say to themselves "I've gotta throw my ass in front of a bullet for this self-serving, elitist, $#@! head?"


A sane individual wouldn't. But the kind of insanity that would allow someone to think this, drilled into people through years of indoctrination, is very common.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Anyone else find it odd that just as criticism of the police state (spying, checkpoints, militarization, brutality, civil asset forfeitures, SWAT raids etc.) was at an all time high among the Right/Libertarians, BLM conveniently appeared, resulting in unconditional support for the boys in blue.
> 
> What happened to BLM anyway?


And why didn't those right/libertarians who were criticizing police abuse jump on that opportunity to build bridges with BLM and expand their power with an anti-police-abuse coalition that crossed all partisan and racial boundaries.

----------


## CPUd

> And why didn't those right/libertarians who were criticizing police abuse jump on that opportunity to build bridges with BLM and expand their power with an anti-police-abuse coalition that crossed all partisan and racial boundaries.


That was the plan, but both sides ended up blaming each other for $#@!ing it up.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Some  media neocons had justified execution of Miriam by saying she was armed with a "car".



Daughter of unarmed black mother Miriam Carey who survived DC shooting     by cops after her car ,in which  mother & daughter were riding    together, had  come to dead end stop is younger than Nabila





 Today another suspect armed with a "car"  was arrested alive near White House checkpoint :



*Secret Service: Driver of suspicious-looking car detained at checkpoint near White House*

Washington Post






March 19 at 1:47 AM   
A  motorist was detained by the Secret Service late Saturday night after  driving a vehicle that appeared to be suspicious up to a checkpoint near  the White House, authorities said. An “on-going criminal investigation”  was under way, a Secret Service spokesperson said early Sunday. 

Two people this month have been taken into custody and accused of  trying to breach White House security. The more recent event took place  earlier Saturday when someone climbed over  a crowd-control barrier outside the White House. After that incident,  it was reported that the president was not in the White House, but had  gone to Florida.
 In a more serious incident on March 10, a man made it onto the White House grounds and reportedly spent 16 minutes there before being arrested. 

The  15th and E Street checkpoint figured in a fatal incident in 2013. A  woman who drove into that checkpoint was later shot by law enforcement  officers near the U.S. Capitol.







> And why didn't those right/libertarians who were criticizing police abuse jump on that opportunity to build bridges with BLM and expand their power with an anti-police-abuse coalition that crossed all partisan and racial boundaries.


There should be alliance with honest folks like Cornel West, Tavis Smiley on such issues.
The faction of BLM that was in most headlines had aligned with one of the worst drone gangsters and war criminals in history and also acted as enablers of oppression/war crimes lobbies.    That was a sham in part pushed by media neocons for political benefits.




Related

*Has civil rights movement been tainted for embracing suspected war criminal?*




*NAACP Applauds President Obama on Nobel Peace Prize


*


*New  Obama HS Chief:  MLK would love our wars!*
*A top Pentagon official says the antiwar  civil rights leader would support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan*


Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Right: Jeh C. Johnson





He has proudly stood with SWCs  Bush and donegangsta also without uttering a peep of criticism about their war mongering.

----------


## CPUd

> Anyone else find it odd that just as criticism of the police state (spying, checkpoints, militarization, brutality, civil asset forfeitures, SWAT raids etc.) was at an all time high among the Right/Libertarians, BLM conveniently appeared, resulting in unconditional support for the boys in blue.
> 
> What happened to BLM anyway?


They were repealed and replaced by a new BLM:

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> They were repealed and replaced by a new BLM:


On a side note, since Trump win, BLM headlines in US Media have dropped by a whopping 96% (margin of error +/- 3%).

----------


## Dark_Horse_Rider

gee, I wonder why . . .

The power of sound and incantation. . . This was created and utilized by Political Hijinks - - - Black Lives *Madder
*

----------


## enhanced_deficit

A few headlines are back in news this week after killing of unarmed woman Justine Damond by cops in Minneapolis.
It is international news.
Have not seen reports of Congress applauding or such.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> It seems a bit histrionic to be calling it murder.


On a different note, curious do you see following killing of a woman by a cop as a "murder" ?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJHc6Nv_6oA

----------


## enhanced_deficit

In potentially-related news, no reports that any elite cops protecting the DC elites  "handled" this woman:




A woman on a bike gestures with her  middle finger as a motorcade with US President Donald Trump departs  Trump National Golf Course October 28, 2017 in Sterling, Virginia. / AFP  PHOTO / Brendan Smialowski. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Ima

*Hail to the chief: cyclist gives Trump the middle finger*

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-middle-finger



Un-related

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Different POTUS, white woman hits White Houce fence, is arrested alive. Congress QUIET:


*White House Briefly Put On Lockdown After Driver Hits Security Barrier*

February 23, 2018          
                                                                                                                 Amy Held        

 



                                            A Secret Service officer hurries past reporters after a  vehicle struck a security barrier near the White House Friday.                                                                

                        Evan Vucci/AP               
*Updated at 9:25 p.m. ET
*
   The White House  went on lockdown for a while on Friday afternoon after a female driver  struck a nearby security barrier and was "immediately apprehended" by officers, according to the Secret Service.
The  agency said in a statement it has had "previous encounters" with the  woman they say is 35, white and from LaVergne, Tenn. The statement said  she has been charged with "numerous criminal violations," and turned  over to Washington, D.C., police.

   It  happened a couple of blocks south of the President's official residence  around 3:30 p.m., as President Trump was inside hosting Australian  Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
   "This minivan came and crashed  into the barricade and tried to push through the barricade and his  tires were burning rubber and a lot of smoke was coming up," eyewitness  Chris Bello said, according to Reuters.  "And then about 30 seconds after that the two security guards that were  in the booth, you know, ordered him to stop doing what he was doing and  he didn't listen," Bello said. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...curity-barrier




                 FOX 5 DC        *✔**     @fox5dc  * 

* Rear window of vehicle that rammed into White House security barrier can be visibly seen blown out after incident. Female driver was apprehended. No shots fired, authorities say http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-new...t-service-says … #fox5dc

                             4:29 PM - Feb 23, 2018       

*

----------


## Anti Federalist

Wonder when those $#@! cops in Florida will get their standing ovation?

----------


## enhanced_deficit

For some reason, Miriam carey's name is not on the tie:





*Randy Moss wore the names of 12 black men and women killed by police on his Hall of Fame tie*

*I just wanted these family members to know theyre not alone.*

                 By                              James Dator                                             Aug  5, 2018                                  

                                    Randy Moss  entered the Pro Football Hall of Fame on Saturday night, and with the  spotlight on him Moss took an opportunity to make a stand. Along with  his gold enshrinement jacket, Moss wore a black tie with the names of 12  black men and women who had been killed by police.

https://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2018...-police-deaths

----------


## Anti Federalist

Why are they no longer applauding?

----------


## sparebulb

> Why are they no longer applauding?


This is a new America after 5/25.

Everyone has grown, developed, and learned to see through another man's eyes at all of the injustice, unfairness, and systematic oppression that has existed here since the 1600's.

A new Congress will lead us in a new direction.

You'll see.




/s

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> This is a new America after 5/25.
> 
> Everyone has grown, developed, and learned to see through another man's eyes at all of the injustice, unfairness, and systematic oppression that has existed here since the 1600's.
> 
> A new Congress will lead us in a new direction.
> 
> You'll see.
> 
> 
> ...


Kneel movement seems to be spreading across America.



1 day ago


4 hours ago

----------


## AngryCanadian

> Kneel movement seems to be spreading across America.
> 
> 
> 
> 1 day ago
> 
> 
> 4 hours ago


Were they paid to kneel? or was this staged for the media press? 
this reminds me when the media in the middle east tried to claim there was a video of cheering palestinians celebrating the attack on 9/11 it appears those videos of cheering palestinians were either forced or staged. So one or the either other.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> Were they paid to kneel? or was this staged for the media press? 
> this reminds me when the media in the middle east tried to claim there was a video of cheering palestinians celebrating the attack on 9/11 it appears those videos of cheering palestinians were either forced or staged. So one or the either other.


Vaguely recall some media reports about 5 dancing mideasterners with a van, don't recall all details. More recently GOP-Adelson  leader was also involved in some claims but will need to look up details. 

But why would you think these cops taking a knee were paid? 
This is happening across America.  Perhaps having a pro-social justice/pro diversity Republican President allied with Black Lives Matter acivists in the White House helped set the tone for such gestures.

*Capitol  Police kneel before protesters in DC and demonstrators march past  Chicago mayor's house as George Floyd protests continue nationwide*

                                              In Washington DC, some Capitol Police in charge of  protecting Congress took a knee as protesters shouted slogans, similar  to other scenes that have played out across the nation (left). While  many view the gesture as an act of solidarity with peaceful protests, as  police join in condemning Floyd's in-custody death, others have  criticized cops who participate as bowing down before protesters.  President Donald Trump waded into the debate on Wednesday morning for  the first time, retweeting a message said New York City police were  being forced to 'bend a knee to terrorists.' In Chicago, marchers passed  through the Logan Square neighborhood past Mayor Lori Lightfoot's house  urging residents to 'wake up' to their protest against racial injustice  and police brutality (top right).  In Los Angeles, protesters gathered  in Hollywood on Wednesday to voice their discontent (bottom right).

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Some members of nrew Congress in the age of Trump seem to be very different from typical Congress membership  in Obama era.
 It's just one member but quite prominent Republican.



2 hours ago

*Mitt Romney joins Black Lives Matter march in D.C.*

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) joined a group of nearly 1,000 Christians marching toward the White House on Sunday.

*What they're saying:* Asked  why it was important for him to be out protesting, Romney told NBC  News: “We need a voice against racism, we need many voices against  racism and against brutality. And we need to stand up and say that black  lives matter."

https://www.axios.com/mitt-romney-bl...d163a2aa9.html




Related

*Family Not Allowed To See Body Or Daughter Of Miriam Carey*

----------


## dannno

^Wow, what a $#@!ing loser.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Not just Mitt Romney and President Trump's daughter,  Trump  ally Kanye West also supports pro social justice, pro BLM, anti brutality protests:

*Kanye West Shows Up at Chicago’s George Floyd Protests*

Blake Montgomery
Updated Jun. 04, 2020 

*
Screenshot/Kanye West*

Kanye West  joined Chicago protests over the death of George Floyd on Thursday  night. Wearing a mask and a black hoodie, the rapper did not stay for  long at the South Side gathering and did not speak to the crowd. Leaders  of the demonstration called for the defunding of the Chicago police  force and the end of a contract between the city’s schools and law  enforcement. West had announced earlier in the day that he established a  $2 million fund for George Floyd’s daughter to attend college and  donated to the families of Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor. 
thedailybeast.com/kanye-west-joins-chicagos-george-floyd-protests

----------


## Created4

> Not just Mitt Romney and President Trump's daughter,  Trump  ally Kanye West also supports pro social justice, pro BLM, anti brutality protests:


So just showing up in public somewhere, while not addressing the crowd, somehow makes him "supports pro social justice, pro BLM"??

Not saying he is or isn't, but I don't see it in this report....

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> So just showing up in public somewhere, while not addressing the crowd, somehow makes him "supports pro social justice, pro BLM"??
> 
> Not saying he is or isn't, but I don't see it in this report....



Assumed his support for these causes was well known given  media reports like this. Him and wife Kim K also played a key role in mobilizing Trump administration to presseure Sweden to support justice after ASAP Rocky was arrested there.



*Kanye West joins #BlackLivesMatter protest in addition to $2 million fund for relief*He also reportedly donated $2M to the families of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna  Taylor, and George Floyd and set up a college fund for Floyd's daughter  Gianna  #JusticeForGeorgeFloyd pic.twitter.com/zH1uhXbJDF — Complex Music (@ComplexMusic) June 5, 2020
 
Kanye, on top of the public appearance, has also created a college  fund for George Floyd’s daughter, the black man who was murdered by the  police in a racist incident that has sparked outrage. The fund will help  his daughter Gianna, six-year-old daughter. 

  In addition, he has also donated $2 million to charities associated  with the movement. The charities will help aid Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna  Taylor and George Floyd’s families and black-owned businesses with  financial contributions in his hometown of Chicago.

The rapper has also pledged to cover legal costs for the Arbery and Taylor families reportedly.
  For the unversed, Ahmaud Arbery was fatally shot while on a jog in  February, and Breonna Taylor was killed in her home by police in March.  Meanwhile George Floyd died on May 25 after police officer Derek Chauvin  pinned him to the ground using his knee. He kept his knee on Floyd's  neck during his arrest, which led to his death. Chauvin and three other  officers involved in Floyd's arrest and resulting death have since been  fired, arrested and charged in a criminal case.

https://www.wionews.com/entertainmen...-relief-303625

----------


## Created4

> Assumed his support for these causes was well known given  media reports like this. Him and wife Kim K also played a key role in mobilizing Trump administration to presseure Sweden to support justice after ASAP Rocky was arrested there.
> 
> 
> 
> *Kanye West joins #BlackLivesMatter protest in addition to $2 million fund for relief*He also reportedly donated $2M to the families of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna  Taylor, and George Floyd and set up a college fund for Floyd's daughter  Gianna  #JusticeForGeorgeFloyd pic.twitter.com/zH1uhXbJDF — Complex Music (@ComplexMusic) June 5, 2020
>  
> Kanye, on top of the public appearance, has also created a college  fund for George Floyd’s daughter, the black man who was murdered by the  police in a racist incident that has sparked outrage. The fund will help  his daughter Gianna, six-year-old daughter. 
> 
>   In addition, he has also donated $2 million to charities associated  with the movement. The charities will help aid Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna  Taylor and George Floyd’s families and black-owned businesses with  financial contributions in his hometown of Chicago.
> ...


So helping victims with financial costs makes him "supports pro social justice, pro BLM"??

His wife helped Trump understand that so many of the minorities incarcerated were there on drug charges which disproportionately targets Blacks, the same thing Ron Paul has said for years and that Rand Paul is now saying.

So I am not quite sure what your point is here.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> So *helping victims* with financial costs makes him "supports pro social justice, pro BLM"??
> 
> His wife helped Trump understand that so many of the minorities incarcerated were there on drug charges which disproportionately targets Blacks, the same thing Ron Paul has said for years and that Rand Paul is now saying.
> 
> So I am not quite sure what your point is here.


EM.

Helping victims of social insjustice would make one a supporter of  campaign against social injustice. Prison reform also falls in same category. 
Not exactly sure where are you arriving at with your argument, thought this was undisputed.  In theory it might be plausible for one to argue that his actions were based on tribal interests and not based on any justice principle but that would involve making some assumptions as a person of a minority group standing up for others in that minority group does not exclude support for justice principles that could be given title of such a campaign. 




Point of my statement was pretty much this observation or you can call it opinion if you like:




> Not just Mitt Romney and President Trump's daughter,  Trump  ally Kanye  West also supports pro social justice, pro BLM, anti brutality protests:


No sure what point you were trying to make, that is there is not enough info available to say that Kanye & Kim K support social justice protests/ BLM?

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Even before the resurfacing of police brutality/racial profiling issue during recent protests, there have been lengthy arguments in media  on both pros and cons of DC Police getting training from a notorious human rights abuser/racial profiler regime (that seems to be supported by major donors of both last DOPA and current GOPA wing politicians).




> *
> 
> A ban on DC police training in Israel would make minorities less safe*
> August 28, 2018
> The  group Operation Free DC says that Metropolitan Police  Department's  engagement with Israeli training programs is "illegal" and  endangers  D.C. citizens.                                   (Photo/Jacquelyn  Martin)           
>           washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/a-ban-on-dc-police-training-in-israel-would-make-minorities-less-safe


*MN cops learned Knee-On-Neck in Israeli training trip.
*



> Minn cops trained by Israeli police, who often use knee-on-neck restraint
> 
> Alison Weir June 2, 2020 ADL, George Floyd, police brutality
> Minn cops trained by Israeli police, who often use knee-on-neck restraint
> 
> Israeli police officers detain a Palestinian protestor on March 12, 2019.
> Over 100 Minnesota law enforcement officers attended a 2012 conference  organized by the Israeli consulate in which Israeli police trained them.  Israeli forces often use the knee-on-neck restraint on Palestinians…
> Israel has been training law enforcement officers around the US for many  years, despite the fact that Israeli forces have a long record of human  rights violations…
> The neck technique taught by Israeli trainers was in the Minneapolis police manual…






 *How Police Became Paramilitaries*

    Michael Shank                    
Ricardo Arduengo/AFP via Getty ImagesA  police officer armed with a semi-automatic carbine watching from an  armored vehicle during a rally protesting the death in police custody of  George Floyd, Miami, Florida, May 31, 2020 Military might has always paraded in America’s streets. But it wasn’t  until this century that it became an often daily presence. In the  2000s, local law enforcement agencies began to adopt the type of  military equipment more frequently used in a war zone: everything from  armored personnel carriers and tanks,  with 360-degree rotating machine gun turrets, to grenade launchers,  drones, assault weapons, and more. Today, billions of dollars’ worth of  military equipment—most used, some new—has been transferred to civilian  police departments. As the ACLU has documented, this has led to the militarization of American policing.

Law enforcement has, in fact, been training for a moment like this—specifically by learning techniques and tactics from Israeli military services. As Amnesty International has documented,  law enforcement officials from as far afield as Florida, New Jersey,  Pennsylvania, California, Arizona, Connecticut, New York, Maryland,  Massachusetts, North Carolina, Georgia, Washington state, and the D.C.  Capitol have traveled to Israel for such training. These programs,  according to research backed  by Jewish Voice for Peace, focus on exchanging methods of “mass  surveillance, racial profiling, and suppression of protest and dissent.”  The 2018 report has prompted some cities, such as Durham,  North Carolina, to oppose police training with Israeli security  partners because of concerns about “subsequent harms to communities of  color” in the US.

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2020/0...aramilitaries/

----------

