Perhaps.
But it looks like police really consider US the enemy.
Posted on 12/30/2010 4:19:27 PM PST by smokingfrog
Shouts break the evening silence.
“Police! Search warrant!”
Officers burst through the door. A man appears across the room. Metal glints from his clasped hands. Shots echo from a police-issue Glock 22. Todd Blair slumps to the floor.
“Five seconds,” said Blair’s mother, Arlean. “In five seconds, he was dead.”
Officers entered Blair’s home Sept. 16 during a drug raid when he stepped into the hall, wielding a golf club, police video shows. Ogden police Sgt. Troy Burnett shot Blair, 45, in the head and chest.
The shooting was deemed legally justified.
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
Also,I not aware of any, not one single organized teacher protest for higher standards, either. Anyway, Please, cite one, small, public protest by any LEO union, organization, unit. Anywhere. Go back decades.
In all, all of Europe, the Gestapo never reached more than 7,000. Further, what explains the near obedience of the French and 15 other nations police forces to invading, foreign Germans?
Just watched the video again - they murdered that guy.
I can only hope that these so called “bravest”, “finest”, or whatever other bogus accolades they give to themselves have their doors kicked in like that see how they react and if they or their family members live.
“Protect and serve” - more like “Murder, bully, pillage, and cover up”
I said you are a noobie because you are.
I said you are a Badge Bunny because of your near homosexual fascination with and support of jack booted thugs.
Your “socialists” crap is just that, crap.
********************************
Define "bystander". Would that definition fit the man in this article?
Perhaps.
But it looks like police really consider US the enemy.
For generations a shotgun load of rock salt has been a very effective way to render an assailant ineffective. Just take the riot gun with 2 light laods of rock salt follwed up by 4 loads of double ought.
Perhaps the very job of being a policeman,obeying and enforcing rules you may not like,meant no big strain in obeying the Gestapo.
Also,remember,few were murdered in the home country,the Nazis sent them by rail to the camps.Thus the police didn't see the real violence and could pretend nothing unusual was happening.
Many Europeans also harbored suspicion and distrust ,even hatred, towards the peoples who were different ,i.e. Jewish ,gypsies, and mentally impaired;that made it much easier for the Nazis.
The Danes hid and protected their Jews and the Swedes gave passports and safe passage to thousands.The French collabration is one of the blackest smears on their national reputation.
There are books written, and courses given, usually titled “Methods of Control” or the like, and they are all about controlling, shaping population.
Police as individuals, formally, and their near trade school ‘education’ are horrifically ignorant of the history and politics of policing, and police by other names. Those that do by accident, time or otherwise become more catholic in their work, often become cynical.
NIxon,who I admired,gave us the EPA,whic is an ongoing disaster.
Bush gave us the declaration of our sworn enemies as a Religion OF Peace,and saddled the U.S. with the Department of Homeland Security.
It is obvious that most politicians care nothing for the restrictions of the Constitution.
Buchanan was probably the last U.S. President to be faithful to his oath.
The rise of various kings is a lesson in raw brutality,even though many celebrated such rulers.Kings got to be THE king by killing ,or having killed,anyone who dared oppose their rule;often even wiping out entire families so that no child would grow to adulthood to rally opposition.Now perhaps once established these kings allowed and promoted schools and churches and trades,but be sure it was mostly for their own ultimate benefit.
I state here my firm conviction that 99% of kings and their families were founded on ,and guilty of mass murder.
THIS is why the American Experiment in a government of laws with the leaders or rulers bound by the "chains of the Constitution" is,and was,the most radical government ever.For the first time a system was devised that openly declared the equality of all,that none might presume to rule by Divine Right or sheer force.Few Americans seem to know or care about any of this.
The police exist to enforce the will of the "king",whoever he may be.
My career behind a badge was cut short by insisting that I would enforce the rules impartially,and the identiity of the person breaking the rules should have no effect.The mayor running a red light is just as big a danger to others as the punk kid doing the same;and a drunken fellow officer throwing the couch through his apartment's picture window is no better (or worse) than anyone else.Nor was the possession of a badge from another department a free pass to park your patrol car in my jurisdiction and engage in illegal,immoral sex while on "duty".
This would make a good oath for us all to swear.
Because some people are immune to pepper spray
Immune? How did they know the guy holding the golf club was immune to CS or pepper spray? What about just tasing him?
Someone can still kill you with a golf club after you pepper spray them.
Woaa....How does that work where there are a dozen fully armed helmeted cops standing there? Are you suggesting they would all just stand there and let the homeowner beat one of them to death with his golf club?
It only takes one well placed strike with a club to kill someone.
I now understand what most others are saying on this thread..You are a real piece of work....
To me - this whole episode is pure nonsense.
The guy was probably scared stiff and did not even realize it was cops and thought his home was being broken into.
He did what any of us would have done and tried to defend himself.
Watching that video almost made me throw up.
Like using a platoon of GD tanks on a guy holding bat...
I’m just imagining myself in that scenario.
If I thought someone was breakin into the house and grabbed my gun, and trying to defend my family, surely I would have been killed too.
And what if this swat team got the wrong house? They would just as easily have killed that homeowner as well who equally would have been startled.
Finally - lets assume the guy did have drugs. So what? would his possession of drugs warrant a death sentence like this?
I am not a drug user ad have never used drugs, but I am trying to think about the consequences of allowing these mercs such lattitude to do this crap.
Lets even assume the guy ran and flushed the drugs down the toilet? So wht? You kill the guy over that?
What the hell nation have we become?
I’m very critical of modern policing, but I have to say from experience that if you watch your mouth, shut up, obey, take your arrest like a professional/man, that the officer just wants to get you to the booking as quick and as easy as possible.
I think 99% of police are honest, reasonably dutiful. A lot of the ...er...labor problems with officers and departments are endemic to all employers and reflect the greater society. There is no pool of saints to recruit from.
I think that police as an institution, like most, are being corrupted, transformed to organs of state power. Slowly, organically. Planned.
This is a silly response. Roe was wrong not because it came from the Supreme Court, rather it was wrong because the Court didn't follow the Constitution, Natural Law, Common Law or any other authority or precedent to come to the decision. It simply invented law whole-cloth.
In regards warrants, Justice Thomas looked back to the history and traditions of the American people, cited to the Constitution and provided sound justification for his decision.
You might not like it, but 4th Amendment cases are markedly different than "substantive due process cases" because the 4th Amendment itself contains the word "unreasonable". Who gets to define unreasonable? You? Why? The Constitution says: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court..." It doesn't say "Tigerseye".
"Substantive due process" doesn't exist in the Constitution. The word "unreasonable" in the 4th Amendment does.
Nice try at masking the issue, but you failed.
But the warrant in the case was not issued as a no-knock warrant was it?
"The next day, police officers applied for and obtained warrants to search petitioner’s home and to arrest both petitioner and Jacobs. Affidavits filed in support of the warrants set forth the details of the narcotics transactions and stated that Jacobs had previously been convicted of arson and firebombing."
And about that case law and legal history cited...
"... common law courts long have held that “when the King is party, the sheriff (if the doors be not open) (They were.) may break the party’s house, either to arrest him, or to do other execution of the K[ing]’s process, if otherwise he cannot enter.” (That standard was not met.) Semayne’s Case, 5 Co. Rep. 91a, 91b, 77 Eng. Rep. 194, 195 (K. B. 1603).""“But before he breaks it, he ought to signify the cause of his coming, and to make request to open doors (That standard was not met.) . . . , for the law without a default in the owner abhors the destruction or breaking of any house (which is for the habitation and safety of man) by which great damage and inconvenience might ensue to the party, when no default is in him; for perhaps he did not know of the process, of which, if he had notice, it is to be presumed that he would obey it . . . .” (Obviously the party in this case did not know it.) Ibid., 77 Eng. Rep., at 195-196."
"See also Case of Richard Curtis, Fost. 135, 137, 168 Eng. Rep. 67, 68 (Crown 1757) (”[N]o precise form of words is required in a case of this kind. It is sufficient that the party hath notice, (None was given.) that the officer cometh not as a mere trespasser, but claiming to act under a proper authority . (That standard was not met.) . .”); Lee v. Gansell, Lofft 374, 381-382, 98 Eng. Rep. 700, 705 (K. B. 1774) (”[A]s to the outer door, the law is now clearly taken” that it is privileged; but the door may be broken “when the due notification and demand has been made and refused”). [n.2]" (That standard was not met.)
"Several prominent founding era commentators agreed on this basic principle. According to Sir Matthew Hale, the “constant practice” at common law was that “the officer may break open the door, if he be sure the offender is there, if after acquainting them of the business, and demanding the prisoner, he refuses to open the door.” See 1 M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown *582." (Obviously that didn't happen)
"William Hawkins propounded a similar principle: “the law doth never allow” an officer to break open the door of a dwelling “but in cases of necessity,” that is, unless he “first signify to those in the house the cause of his coming, and request them to give him admittance.” (Obviously that didn't happen.) 2 W. Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown, ch. 14, §1, p. 138 (6th ed. 1787)."
"Sir William Blackstone stated simply that the sheriff may “justify breaking open doors, if the possession be not quietly delivered.”3 Blackstone *412." (That standard was not upheld.)
"and a few States had enacted statutes specifically embracing the common law view that the breaking of the door of a dwelling was permitted once admittance was refused, (Clearly they didn't meet that standard.) see, e.g., Act of Nov. 8, 1782, ch. 15, ¶6, in Acts and Laws of Massachusetts 193 (1782); Act of Apr. 13, 1782, ch. 39, §3, in 1 Laws of the State of New York 480 (1886); Act of June 24, 1782, ch. 317, §18, in Acts of the General Assembly of New Jersey (1784) (reprinted in The First Laws of the State of New Jersey 293-294 (J. Cushing comp. 1981)); Act of Dec. 23, 1780, ch. 925, §5, in 10 Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania 255 (J. Mitchell & H. Flanders comp. 1904)."
Apparently you can't read or tell the truth. Only a jackboot would consider that decision good law.
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.