Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

9th CIRCUIT at it again -- TASER - December 2009
http://angelfire.com/biz4/davidosborne/dec2009taser.pdf ^ | 30 DEC 2009 | 9th CIRCUIT COURT

Posted on 12/30/2009 10:06:50 PM PST by davidosborne

9th CIRCUIT CONCLUSION (posted on end of 22 Page decision) -- FULL PDF at link..

Viewing the facts, as we must, in the light most favorable to Bryan, we conclude, for the purposes of summary judgment, that Officer McPherson is not entitled to qualified immunity. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s denial of summary judgment and REMAND this case for further proceedings.

MY CONCULSION: The 9th CIRCUIT has once again proven what a bunch of IDIOTS they are.. and WE THE PEOPLE should ABOLISH this court IMMEDIATELY !!!


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: 9circuit; 9thcircus; police; spartansixdelta; taser; tasr

1 posted on 12/30/2009 10:06:51 PM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: politicallyincarrect; /\XABN584; 3D-JOY; 5Madman; <1/1,000,000th%; 11B3; 1Peter2:16; ...

related news link..

Federal Appeals Court Decides When Officers Should Use Tasers

http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/22094903/detail.html


2 posted on 12/30/2009 10:12:30 PM PST by davidosborne (DavidOsborneDotZurvitaDotBiz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
If only to pay homage to our dwindling Bill of Rights, instead of leaving it to a judge, whose appointment was likely a matter of politics, wouldn't you rather have a jury decide whether the police used excessive force in cases like this? That's what the 9th Circuit did here. I may or may not have a problem with California juries, but I do not have a problem with what the court did in this case.
3 posted on 12/30/2009 10:21:14 PM PST by PUGACHEV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

Can they use them on the 9th Circus?


4 posted on 12/30/2009 10:25:23 PM PST by Brytani (Support Allen West For Congress - www.allenwestforcongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PUGACHEV

I am not sure you understand the issue.... It is the TASER that is on trial as usual.... If the guy was NON-COMPLIANT with the officers orders he deserved to be tazed... period... Which is clearly the case here... what the court is trying to do is DICTATE agency policy.. There are a lot of folks out there who THINK the taser in “cruel and unusual punishment” -—— and the 9th circus is catering that that group... that is a POLITICAL debate not a legal one.. unfortunately for the American People this particular court is always on the leading edge of the the POLITICAL DEBATE — on the FAR LEFT of the POLITICAL SPECTRUM of course..


5 posted on 12/30/2009 10:40:36 PM PST by davidosborne (DavidOsborneDotZurvitaDotBiz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
If the guy was NON-COMPLIANT with the officers orders he deserved to be tazed... period... Which is clearly the case here...

There's no "period" about it in a free country, tough guy. What the Court ruled on were the limits of non-compliance - i.e. the difference between a citizen's right to contest a police officer in a given situation, versus crossing the line into non-compliance.

In this country, we still have the right to question a police officer, to a certain extent and within reasonable boundaries, without being summarily electrocuted for daring to question the administration of police powers against our personal freedom. IMO, that's a good thing.

But hey, literally millions of statists disagree with me, so feel free. Just remember to feel lucky, while you're doing it, that I'm not a cop in your world.

6 posted on 12/30/2009 10:47:49 PM PST by Talisker (When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on it's own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
No, I do not think you understand what the court did here. This was an appeal of a lower court's denial of the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court did not decide whether the Taser was used properly or not in this case; it left that for the jury to decide at a trial to be held later. Had the court done otherwise, it would have established, as a matter of law, that an officer's decision on whether to use a Taser, or any other type of force for that matter, is never reviewable since the officer has immunity, as the defendant claimed in this case. If that ever becomes the law, however much you like the police, we, as citizens, have lost whatever may be left of out 4th amendment rights. I am not ready to give that up yet.
7 posted on 12/30/2009 10:58:59 PM PST by PUGACHEV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PUGACHEV

my FRiend... you just made my point.... The issue is NOT about whether the officer used excessive force or not.. it is about whether the TAZER <-— was excessive force..... like I said .. it is the TAZER that is on trial here.... IF the officer used excessive force regardless of whether it was with a TAZER, a GUN, a BASEBALL BAT, or the leg from a broken KITCHEN TABLE that is a separate issue and of course it is subject to review and opinion.. etc...etc...etc... THAT is NOT what is at issue here....


8 posted on 12/30/2009 11:07:55 PM PST by davidosborne (DavidOsborneDotZurvitaDotBiz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

9 posted on 12/30/2009 11:17:11 PM PST by davidosborne (DavidOsborneDotZurvitaDotBiz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PUGACHEV

PUGACHEV <——— read your own post and think about what you just said...

“The court did not decide whether the Taser was used properly or not in this case; it left that for the jury to decide at a trial to be held later.”

The court has not business deciding when a TASER is or IS NOT appropriate to be used .... it is a restraining device.. just like any other.... was the officer justified to TOUCH the individual? twist his arm behind his back?... put him in hadcuffs?... whatever... if the answer to these questions is YES... than end of story IMHO... the fact that the officer chose to use a TASER is what is at issue here..... and addressing this question is inappropriate IMHO... the 9th CIRCUS is trying to LEGISLATE POLICY.. and that my FRIEND wrong.... POLICY DEABTE is POLITICAL DEBATE ... NOT A LEGAL ONE...


10 posted on 12/30/2009 11:25:39 PM PST by davidosborne (DavidOsborneDotZurvitaDotBiz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
ugh... a lot of typos on that response.. let me clean it up and revise and extend my remarks.. The court has NO business deciding when a TASER is or IS NOT appropriate to be used .... furthermore... the 9th CIRCUS has no business REMANDING that decision down to a lower court either.. basicly FORCING the lower court to decide when a taser should or should not be used...... it is a restraining device.. just like any other.... was the officer justified to TOUCH the individual? twist his arm behind his back?... put him in handcuffs?... whatever... if the answer to these questions is YES... than end of story IMHO... the fact that the officer chose to use a TASER is what the 9th CIRCUS seems to have an problem with.. and is essentially FORCING a lower court to decide POLICY..... THAT is what is INAPPROPRIATELY at issue here..... addressing this question is an inappropriate role of the courts IMHO... the 9th CIRCUS is trying to LEGISLATE POLICY.. and that my FRIEND is wrong.... POLICY DEABTE is POLITICAL DEBATE ... NOT A LEGAL ONE... --- IF an officer is JUSTIFIED in using force than so be it.. the ammount and TYPE of force used in response to resistance is POLICY.... think about it this way.... IF I am justified to use deadly force on an individual than so be it..... what difference does it make if I use a pistol.. and fire 2 to the body 1 to the head.. or just use a pick axe to the head... both are deadly force... the issue to be decided by the courts is was deadly force justified <--- if so end of story... makes no difference if you use a pistol or an axe....
11 posted on 12/31/2009 12:03:57 AM PST by davidosborne (DavidOsborneDotZurvitaDotBiz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

I agree with you. The bootlickers and statists scare me with their “police can do no wrong” attitude.


12 posted on 12/31/2009 12:37:08 AM PST by packrat35 (Democrat Healthcare is a 9-11 Attack on the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

Yes the court does have a right. Cops use the damn things far too much and you might think different if it was your 12 year old in school they made dance.

We are not slaves to cops and that thinking needs to stop and right now.


13 posted on 12/31/2009 12:39:26 AM PST by packrat35 (Democrat Healthcare is a 9-11 Attack on the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
Tasisker,

Sorry I missed your post while resonding to PUGACHEV, my 2cents worth on your post in red..

There's no "period" about it in a free country, tough guy. What the Court ruled on were the limits of non-compliance - i.e. the difference between a citizen's right to contest a police officer in a given situation, versus crossing the line into non-compliance.

I disagree my FRiend... there are MANY cases that deal with use of force in general.. what "level" of force is appropriate for a "level" of resistance... many states vary on POLICY (ie level 1 resistance and appropriate responses vs. LEVEL 5 resistance <-DEADLY FORCE RESPONSE) etc... etc.. and everything in between.... again this is a POLICY debate.... PERIOD.. and yes I mean PERIOD.. and in fact agencies vary within a state.. but these are appropriately STATE and LOCAL POLICY ISSUES...

In this country, we still have the right to question a police officer, to a certain extent and within reasonable boundaries, without being summarily electrocuted for daring to question the administration of police powers against our personal freedom. IMO, that's a good thing.

your ignorance of what a TASER is and DOES is clear but I wont hold that against you my FRiend... A POLICY argument can be made and often IS made about at what "level" of resistance is the Taser appropriate... Many would argue that a taser should be used ONLY when DEADLY FORCE is an option....Others would argue that simply refusing to put your hands behind your back and allow an officer to place you in handcuffs <-- the next logical step in a sequence of events following an officers decision to make a physical arrest based on the officers opinion that probable cause exists that the person has committed a crime, and such resistance is interferring with the officers attempt to exercise his/her authority to place you under arrest...

But hey, literally millions of statists disagree with me, so feel free. Just remember to feel lucky, while you're doing it, that I'm not a cop in your world.

LOL-------

14 posted on 12/31/2009 1:05:27 AM PST by davidosborne (DavidOsborneDotZurvitaDotBiz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: packrat35

Oh ok, so now I am a bootlicker and a statist? LOL -— WOW I expect that on some forums but not on FReerepublic.. LOL ——


15 posted on 12/31/2009 1:29:42 AM PST by davidosborne (DavidOsborneDotZurvitaDotBiz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: packrat35

I will be happy to review any case you present and give my opinion on the appropriateness of use of force in general... but it is not apprproptiate to debate the TYPE of force chosen by the officer so long as it falls within the Officer’s use of force POLICY.... If an officer violates agency policy... the AGENCY can and should be held liable.... and in most cases the OFFICER himself can and should be held liable...

Let’s be clear about what we are talking about my FRiend...


16 posted on 12/31/2009 1:36:50 AM PST by davidosborne (DavidOsborneDotZurvitaDotBiz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

BTTT


17 posted on 12/31/2009 2:57:18 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

I disagree completely with you. Their policy is too broad and needs to be cut back drastically, in regards to the use of tasers and pepper spray.

Since they won’t do it, and always clear themselves, the court is the proper remedy to reel them in.


18 posted on 12/31/2009 5:02:51 AM PST by packrat35 (Democrat Healthcare is a 9-11 Attack on the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

Yes I would say that describes many here on FR in regards to police action.


19 posted on 12/31/2009 5:03:45 AM PST by packrat35 (Democrat Healthcare is a 9-11 Attack on the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

Message to cops out there: Do not do your job. Drive slow and just clean up the messes.


20 posted on 12/31/2009 5:06:01 AM PST by thefactor (yes, as a matter of fact, i DID only read the excerpt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: packrat35

Please provide backup for your statement that cops use the damn thing too much. What study came to that conclusion? Or did you come up with that thought given the amount of articles you see on the internet?


21 posted on 12/31/2009 5:08:30 AM PST by thefactor (yes, as a matter of fact, i DID only read the excerpt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
the difference between a citizen's right to contest a police officer in a given situation, versus crossing the line into non-compliance.

Not sure if I addressed this point very well so here it goes..... OF COURSE citizens have the right to contest a police officer in ANY given situation..

but the time and place to do that is NOT when you are told that you are under arrest and told to put your hands behind your back.....

failing to comply with this ORDER is resistance....or NON-COMPLIANCE...... and by the way is a crime in and of itself.... at this point the discussion is OVER you have a LEGAL obligation to submit to the arrest and take the issue up with the COURT.... PERIOD....PERIOD.....PERIOD.... what part of this does the 9th circuit NOT understand...... you will have AMPLE opportunity to contest ANY and ALL actions of ANYONE you wish including the officer who arrested you....

22 posted on 12/31/2009 5:40:02 AM PST by davidosborne (DavidOsborneDotZurvitaDotBiz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: packrat35

That is a pretty harsh opinion of me having never met me.....


23 posted on 12/31/2009 5:41:22 AM PST by davidosborne (DavidOsborneDotZurvitaDotBiz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

lol.... Lord help us if it really does come down to that.. I might need to find another occupation..


24 posted on 12/31/2009 5:42:08 AM PST by davidosborne (DavidOsborneDotZurvitaDotBiz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

You’re a known police stooge, so I will not waste time looking up all the hundreds of cases yearly, such as a 12 year old at school.


25 posted on 12/31/2009 5:45:27 AM PST by packrat35 (Democrat Healthcare is a 9-11 Attack on the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

I’ve read your posts. Are you a cop? Only explanation!


26 posted on 12/31/2009 5:46:59 AM PST by packrat35 (Democrat Healthcare is a 9-11 Attack on the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: packrat35

police stooge? LOL


27 posted on 12/31/2009 5:47:10 AM PST by davidosborne (DavidOsborneDotZurvitaDotBiz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: packrat35
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-stooge.html

stooge / stoōj/
• n. 1. derog. a person who serves merely to support or assist others, particularly in doing unpleasant work: you fell for that helpless-female act and let her make you a stooge.

LOL !!!! ∎ a person who is employed to assume a particular role while keeping their true identity hidden: a police stooge.

2. a performer whose act involves being the butt of a comedian's jokes.

• v. [intr.] 1. move around aimlessly; drift or cruise: she stooged around in the bathroom for a while.

2. perform a role that involves being the butt of a comedian's jokes.

28 posted on 12/31/2009 5:52:29 AM PST by davidosborne (DavidOsborneDotZurvitaDotBiz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: packrat35

packrat35... I will spare you my FULL resume but you can read at your leisure... Here is my LinkedIN profile page..

http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidosborne1


29 posted on 12/31/2009 5:54:37 AM PST by davidosborne (DavidOsborneDotZurvitaDotBiz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

Apparently, you do not understand that “excessive force” is defined by the situation, and not the tool. The taser may be fine in certain situations - and the court is letting a jury decide if this is one of them.

Selecting the tool to be used is a human action. That is what is under question here.


30 posted on 12/31/2009 6:01:35 AM PST by MortMan (Stubbing one's toes is a valid (if painful) way of locating furniture in the dark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

I agree with your logic but NOT your conclusion... IF force was authorized under the policy of the employing agency of the officer in this case.... AND the TASER was an approved “tool” in applying such force.. which I believe to be the case here.. than the 9th circus is putting the TOOL on trial... the only QUESTION that should be asked is whether FORCE was AUTHORIZED.. in other words was there or was there NOT resistance that needed to be overcome for the officer to do his job..... that is the LEGAL question and if the answer is NO the officer and the agency should be LIABLE for “excessive force” regardless of whether the force was applied using a tazer or an arm twist..


31 posted on 12/31/2009 6:12:49 AM PST by davidosborne (DavidOsborneDotZurvitaDotBiz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

You apparently believe that all force is equal. Common sense disagrees.

Let’s break down your argument:

(1) “IF force was authorized under the policy...”

Isn’t the decision to apply force and the level of force applied inherently a decision made by the officer? Your reliance on a “policy” to absolve the officer from making a decision means that the officer needn’t ever consider NOT applying force, ambiguity be damned.

(2) “AND the TASER was an approved “tool” in applying such force”

You appropriately use the phrase “such force”, which implicitly acknowledges that there is a continuum of levels of force that can be applied by police. The taser is not the first level of escalation - that would be repeating the command, probably in a louder voice, if the arrestee is non-compliant but otherwise not belligerent.

(3) “which I believe to be the case here..”

Courts cannot try cases of belief - only those of fact. Appeals courts exist to make sure courts who try facts didn’t hose up the process. Your belief, as stated here, is that the lawsuit is without merit. That would necessarily be an issue of fact to be decided by the court.

The application of force by the police must be proportionate to the level of resistance met. If you believe that there is only a single-trigger for the application of force, then why do police ever bother not using their firearms. That is the ultimate level of force, is the safest for the officer (provided they can shoot straight), and is likely to be the most decisive in resolving the issue.

No, the tool is not on trial. The choice to use the tool in the specific situation is what’s on trial.

BTW, in engineering terms, you are advocating a “bang-bang controller”. Either it is full-on or full-off, with no throttle control. For the police, this translates to “comply or die”.

Is that really what you want?


32 posted on 12/31/2009 6:29:25 AM PST by MortMan (Stubbing one's toes is a valid (if painful) way of locating furniture in the dark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

BTTT


33 posted on 12/31/2009 6:45:18 AM PST by WalterSkinner ( In Memory of My Father--WWII Vet and Patriot 1926-2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

MortMan,

Thanks for your immediate reply...

(1) YES in fact the decision IS made by the officer to determine whether or not the suspect is RESISTING... once that question is answered in the affirmitive then FORCE is needed to overcome the resistance... THE POLICY of the agency will dictate what TOOLS may be used given the LEVEL of resistance.. of course someone who is non-compliant with an officers verbal command does not deserve to be SHOT between the eyes in most cases.... but certainly there may be a situation where deadly force IS appropriate after verbal non-compliance such as a person with a gun running into a crowded theatre saying he is going to kill everyone inside.. you can verbally tell the guy to stop, however if he fails to obey this verbal command than certainly deadly force is something to be considered.....

(2) you asert that the taser is NOT the first level of escalation in ANY case.. well I just gave you one example where deadly force may be considered at the “first level”

(3) you correctly stated that the question “on trial” is whether the taser was appropriate for this situation.. which fits my definition of the “tool” being on trial.... or at minimum the agency POLICY regarding the use of this tool...... suppose for a moment that it was not a TASER that was used but was some other tool or technique (such as an arm twist etc.)... we would not even be having this discussion..... IMHO here is the bottom line my friend.... if the officer was justified in putting his hands on the suspect against the suspects will.... I hope you agree that when an officer puts his hands on someone against their will that is a very dangerous situation... and if the officer chooses to use the taser in the process of going “hands on” than so be it.... There are a lot of folks who think that an officer should try every verbal or “PHYSICAL” technique before even considering the use of the taser.... or worse ONLY use the taser when DEADLY FORCE is appropriate........ that is a POLITICAL DEBATE.... If we want to have the debate about where the taser should be placed in the use of force continnum than so be it .. let’s have that debate not a TRIAL....


34 posted on 12/31/2009 7:03:20 AM PST by davidosborne (DavidOsborneDotZurvitaDotBiz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: All

What really makes me so mad about this situation is that many folks/organizations have tried, and some successfully I might add.. to force AGENCY policymakers to move the taser further up the use of force continuum almost to the point where the tool becomes useless and puts officers and suspects for that matter in a more dangerous position than they would be if the taser was introduced to the situation sooner rather than later...


35 posted on 12/31/2009 7:15:44 AM PST by davidosborne (DavidOsborneDotZurvitaDotBiz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

I’m sorry, but your insistence that a suspect “resisting” requires physical force is absolutely wrong without any characterization the “resistance” being offered.

Further, you completely mischaracterized my comment on point 2 - where I stated that there is a continuum of response levels. I may have not been completely clear that the independent variable in the equation is the level (including duration) of resistance being met, but I did not specify that all situation require a certain response.

Like you, I provided an example situation, but one in which the suspect isn’t attacked by the police officer.

Finally, your definition of the “tool” being on trial is seriously mucked up if you believe that the decision to use the tool is the same as the availability of the tool.

Let me be very specific: Using a less-lethal (NOT non-lethal) weapon is an escalation of force when the subject is non-belligerent. By your logic, a deaf man should be tazed because he doesn’t comply with instructions he cannot hear. More than that - the deaf man MUST be tazed because he is non-compliant.

Your logic is very, very faulty in this instance, FRiend. I disagree completely with your reasoning and your conclusions.


36 posted on 12/31/2009 7:32:08 AM PST by MortMan (Stubbing one's toes is a valid (if painful) way of locating furniture in the dark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne; All

Yeah, Dave, the courts need to step carefully with this one. You know as well as I, what’s the point of having a device that can overcome resistance from a distance if you cannot deploy until you have to go up and touch the suspect.

That’s when most active and/or aggressive resistance starts.

Mace needs to be tossed unless for crowd control, some people put that on their beans and rice. Didn’t work well on me during certs.

Naysayers need to go do three minutes in the redman suit against the typical young male resistor. Or two. Then ask them if they wish they had the taser.

An earlier generation of police officers just split peoples skull with a baton at resistance. They also had less resistings, strangely enough.

I like to think we have moved on well beyond that. There were always in custody deaths, but now there is a scary tool to blame.

Folks, if cops have to go hands on with suspects, that’s when the injuries go way up for officer and suspect. That equates to more tax dollars being spent for treatment and loss of officers on the street. That hurts the entire public. Taser has proven time and time again that it is a very effective way of overcoming resistance. Humanely. People don’t die because of the taser, they die because other reasons, poor health, drug/alchohol usage, etc.

Doctors and use of force experts make recommendations to police departments where tools and techniques should go on the use of force matrix. Why does the court think it has the best answer rather than consult with those experts?


37 posted on 12/31/2009 7:46:01 AM PST by Molon Labbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

Okay my friend.. we can go back and forth with examples of this and that.. but we both know that the totality of the circumstances will dictate any and all actions.. and there will always be someone to monday morning quarterback any and all actions an officer makes.... but the fact of the matter remains that the 9th CIRUCS is in fact putting the TASER on trial here... the court is trying to accomplish in one sweeping motion what some activisits have not been able to accomplish to the extent that they desire... I get that some folks think the taser is such a bad tool.. your use of the term “less lethal” implies that the use of the taser CAN cause DEATH...... which raises an entirely different question all together..... there has not been a single case past, present, or (future) which I can say with great confidence that has ever.. or WILL EVER be able to prove that the proper use of a taser is “LETHAL”.... of course you can argue that a pencil is LETHAL if used in a manner other than the manufacturer intended it to be used..... so I don’t even want to go there.....


38 posted on 12/31/2009 7:46:52 AM PST by davidosborne (DavidOsborneDotZurvitaDotBiz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Molon Labbie

thanks for chiming in on this one my FRiend.. I am bowing out of this debate at this point is 1900hrs here in Iraq.. I am going to have a new years eve pizza with my battle buddies.. hoooooah


39 posted on 12/31/2009 7:49:45 AM PST by davidosborne (DavidOsborneDotZurvitaDotBiz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

I must protest your use of “fact of the matter”. You have stated your opinion - just as I have. We disagree (but needn’t be disagreeable).

Happy New Year to you, FRiend.


40 posted on 12/31/2009 8:03:55 AM PST by MortMan (Stubbing one's toes is a valid (if painful) way of locating furniture in the dark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

:) and a happy new — taser free — year to you..


41 posted on 12/31/2009 10:12:17 AM PST by davidosborne (DavidOsborneDotZurvitaDotBiz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

Yes David. It is most absurd. It is like having to get permission from the WH to bomb some shit house in an enemy infested region.


42 posted on 12/31/2009 3:59:28 PM PST by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle

Your analagy is a bit extreme my friend but I get your point. I never intended to spend so much time on this thread but I guess it struck a nerve in me. Lol. Honestly I never expected the replies I got. This issue is so clear to me that I assumed all conservatives would see it exactly the same way I do. There really is no grey area. Either we the people are going to revolt against activist courts or we are going to continue to allow courts to write political policy. I pray that we the people will take the constitutionally authorized step and abolish this 9th circuit court immediately before they lead this country down a path to a point of no return. We are not at the point of no retun yet but I am afraid we are very close


43 posted on 12/31/2009 11:00:36 PM PST by davidosborne (DavidOsborneDotZurvitaDotBiz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle

After further consideration of you analogy (permission from WH ti strike target in combat) I would like to follow that thinking for a moment and apply the logic to this case. I see this case as far worse than that because the WH does have a role a HUGE role for that matter in determining POLICy. The decicion to strike or don’t strike a particular target is made by us guys on the ground who have the responsibility to carry out policy on the battlefield. We do so by operating within the guidelines of policy. We call that rules of engagement. We can argue that the POTUS is not the best person to be the sole decision maker to approve or disapprove a particular strike on a particular target at a particular time. These decisions are best made by the folks on the ground who are actively assessing the situation with the guidlines of the rules of engagement of course. What we have here in the 9th circuit taser case is far worse because now we have a court purporting to be a policymaker. Which would be akin to having the whitehouse submit a request to the 9th circuit awaiting a judges ruling so that he can send that order to the commander on the ground before striking a particular target at a particular time. Is this really the direction we want to go? I think policy decisions need to stay out of the courts and courts need to stay out of policy decisions


44 posted on 12/31/2009 11:18:36 PM PST by davidosborne (DavidOsborneDotZurvitaDotBiz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
Precisely David. And that is why I used the analogy. LBJ use to brag about our Air Force and Navy/Marines having to get permission to literally bomb some ground target. He once used the following paraphrase.....heh heh.... they have to call me before they can drop a bomb on a shit house.
We are on the same wavelength.
45 posted on 01/01/2010 4:39:28 PM PST by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle

:)


46 posted on 01/02/2010 3:58:05 AM PST by davidosborne (DavidOsborneDotZurvitaDotBiz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson