Free Republic

I've coached soccer both competitively and recreationally for fifteen years. I have no doubt but that most injuries are caused by poor coaching and poor officiating. A properly executed header will not cause a concussion and will not even hurt. The best change that could be made in soccer today--eliminate the shoot-out to resolve tie games and instead pull both keepers from the field and play golden goal.

Stryker

But what has Islam done for us lately?

What should be of political concern to us regarding Rush's situation is that even a man of his standards can be driven to doctor shopping and addiction because of the failure of the medical system to properly treat pain. This failure is a direct result of the policy of the DEA to attempt to bust any doctor that prescribes more pain relievers than are prescribed on average by his peers. Doctors are afraid of being disciplined or arrested so they refuse to properly treat pain, resulting in the patient going to more than one doctor in search of relief.

What most people do not know is that pain patients can be safely medicated with heavy doses of opiates these days and then weaned off of the opiates. If the patient cannot be weaned off, there is a new drug on the market, which the FDA refuses to allow doctors to use for the purpose of treating addiction, that completely weans the patient with virtually no side affects within about one week. It is called ibuprenorphine. Currently, it is only legal to use on chronic pain patients. But it is non-abusable, as powerful as morphine, and easily weaned from. Meanwhile, it completely blocks the effects of any opiates the patient may attempt to take.

We need the federal and state governments out of medicine and that is what Rush's problem demonstrates.

If the author is correct, and my reading of the Koran confirms that he is, then we are entering into the beginning of global warfare: WWIII. The Koran is to our generation what Mein Kampf was to the greatest generation--a blueprint for all to see that our enemy's fundamental ideology calls for our destruction. I know quite a few Muslims and find them to be enjoyable and outgoing friends. They maintain a certain naivete that is quite charming. But they practice their religion like the typical Christian--when it is convenient. This is the Islamic middle class. However, as world terrorist events and counterstrikes increase and Western and pro-Western states begin to suppress the Islamic middle class, more and more Muslims will turn to the Koran for instruction and find that armed domination of the West is the call of their Holy Book and their Prophet. It is when this middle class begins to "walk their talk" that all hell will break loose. The sooner we recognize these facts, the smaller our losses will be.

I can't disagree with a point that you made. I am trained in Christian marital counseling by the Assemblies of God. My point is that there has become way too much "Americanism" in what is called Christianity today. There is nothing special about America that gives it some saintly status that so many Christians think it has. In my heart, it has a political status that borders on what would be sainthood in Christianity, but it has no more grace, nor forgiveness, nor reprieve, than any other country. It is merely a form of organized force which Christians should reject with ease as a force to use to obtain Christian ends. Once we take that path, we stand with the Jews and cry out for the release of Barrabas--political force to change the world, and we reject the messianic method of change--self sacrifice as proof of God's love of all mankind, and faith that the Holy Spirit will abide in those that witness that sacrifice.

"Give us Barrabas!" Any use of governmental power is relying on force rather than the Holy Spirit. When the Jews called for the release of the violent revolutionary rather than the miracle working but peaceful Messiah, they committed the same mistake that the Christian right does. God's plan is delineated in no uncertain terms in the Bible. Go forth and convert the nations. Then let the Holy Spirit do what it will. When you join together with other Christians to take political power you are neglecting your first and only calling--to minister the death and resurrection of our Savior. And in doing so, you stand with the Jews and scream out for the release of Barrabas! You seek to force political change and not spiritual change.

No, I meant exactly what I said, which was not difficult to understand. The Bible does not establish what "traditional family values" are and therefore, what the Christian right calls traditional family values are American but not Christian. The families in the Bible are not to be emulated, as they are all dysfunctional.

The agenda of the Christian right. I don't necessarily disagree with many of their positions, especially those against abortion and supporting the traditional family, but that does not make them any less misdirected in trying to use state power rather than spiritual power to further their cause. As to those values being "Christian," they have chosen the label: not I. The families in the Bible are noticeably disfunctional, so I don't see why the traditional American family structure is a Christian value. But they have termed it such.

You forget that the Jews were given the choice to free Barrabas, the political savior, from the death penalty, or to free Jesus, and they chose Barrabas. Once Jesus made it clear that His revolution did not come by changing the government, He lost His thousands and remained with only a handful of followers. It was with His resurrection that His followers began to understand and return to belief in His way. (Which did in fact conquer Rome without a drop of Roman blood being shed within a mere two and a half centuries).

Those Christians in today's society that seek political power to impose Christian values are doing nothing more than screaming "Barrabas!" once again, and leaving the Savior to be crucified. They are the Jews sacrificing their true Savior for a chance to overthrow Rome. But our duty is and always will be to humbly spread the good news and let the Holy Spirit deal with the results.

How do you think Cochran won the Simpson trial? He caught the lead detective lying. You are just burying your head in the sand. That is much easier than facing a hard truth. I like cops. I hate what the suppression rule has done to them. But once you start lying over little things, it becomes more and more easy.

I don't know if cops are trained to lie on the stand, but after fifteen years of criminal defense, most in the defense of first degree murder cases, I concluded that about 90% of them do in fact lie on the witness stand. Knowing that they would lie was one of my most powerful weapons. For instance, if my client was staggeringly drunk and clearly not able to understand his rights, and the eye witnesses stated that the perp reaked of alcohol, I would file a motion to suppress the confession knowing that the cops would come to the deposition and lie that my client was clearly sober so that the confession would not be suppressed. Then at trial they had to stick to the deposition testimony. As a result, the jury heard that my client was stone cold sober but that the perp smelled like he fell into a brewing vat. This incongruity in the evidence was enough in itself to raise reasonable doubt in the minds of the average jury. I can't tell you how many cases I won just relying on the cops to lie.

Every person in the courtroom knows that all guns and all marijuana baggies are not sticking out from under the passenger's seat or the glove box, but the prosecutor routinely puts on this perjured testimony, the judge regularly pretends to believe it, and the evidence seized as supposedly in plain view but actually obtained from an illegal search is not suppressed. The whole farce goes on in thousands of courtrooms every day across the land. Our police are professional liars because if they weren't, they couldn't make enough cases to obtain federal aid money based upon the number of drug and gun busts made by each department each year. Those are the facts: like them or not.

I agree. I have even heard two administration officials refer to Saddam's brutality as unprecedented in history. It scares me that people who could make such enormously stupid statements could actually have a say in shaping our public and international policy.

But your suggestion was that he was sentenced so harshly because he might infect someone with a disease. You cannot slip away from faulty reasoning so slyly.

Here come all the Libertarians to defend this POS. I'm glad he will rot in jail for the rest of his life. Then again I am for law and order and do not bitch about the "trashing of the constitution" when the law is actually enforced. Some of you complainers need to grow up. Give me one example of an upstanding, law abiding citizen who has anything to worry about with regard to this story.

I spent many a year every day watching the criminal courts dispense what passes for justice these days and can assure you that there are many fine, upstanding citizens serving heavy time that are innocent of wrongdoing. If you wish, I will go through a few examples. Suffice it to say that the types of crimes in which model citizens find themselves nevertheless imprisoned are typically self-defense with a firearm, rape where the only evidence is the victim's word and the victim is somehow related to the defendant, murder (where there is no victim to identify the perpertrator), and domestic assault cases that also affect alimony and custody. In short, you know not of what you speak.

Since some of these people carry diseases that could kill you if they infected you, I agree with the judge. Let the perp prove his case to an appeals court.

We should convict people for what they do: not for what they might have done. This was at one time a fundamental tenet of English and American law, but like our basic freedoms has been rapidly eroded in the last thirty years.

This conversation is pointless in that you spend no time thinking. You feel a certain way and then write what you feel. I will make a couple of final points and then call it quits.

An assault is a verbal threat coupled with the apparent ability to carry out the threat. Hence, pointing your cellular at someone in any manner is not an assault, unless you are verbally threatening to use it in some manner that would lead to serious bodily harm or death.

Fleeing from a traffic stop does usually mean that the driver has an outstanding warrant. There are millions upon millions of outstanding warrants in this country, most for such things as driving without insurance or failure to pay child support. It is for that very reason that most jurisdictions have or are considering prohibiting their officers from engaging in hot pursuit except in the case of a known violent felon being in the pursued car. The number of deaths stemming from hot pursuit are simply too high a price to pay when the police can simply take down a tag number and arrest the violator at work, home or other place when he is not in a position to flee.

As for being innocent, current studies indicate that the average American commits at least one felony and a host of misdemeanors every year due to the vast quantity of laws that have been promulgated in the last thirty years. Congress and the state legislative bodies have delegated their rule making powers to bureacracies that can also establish criminal liabily for violation of rules that the particular agency generates. Hence, if, for instance, you poor your used oil out in your back yard, you may well be guilty of a felony in some states. The point is, we are all felons now, and it's only a matter of who gets caught and which laws they choose to emphasize for enforcement purposes. And with so many criminal laws, every increase in funding for enforcement results in more arrests and therefore higher crime rates (even though the crime rate has in reality remained constant). We therefore are buying our way into a true police state. Something about you makes me think you will like a cop on every corner, though.

BTW, couldn't you come up with a little sarcasm or wit or engaging turn of a phrase, rather than just calling me a dumbshit. It makes you look unintelligent. Just my opinion.

I'm overwhelmed by illogical thinking. You do not even know the definition of an "assault" (it's not a remedy for hemmoroids), nor can you demonstrate how any crime occurred calling for deadly force that the police didn't initiate by using hot pursuit for a traffic violation. Most jurisdictions in the United States have denied their police their little death dealing joy rides by this time. My law enforcement friends, and I have many of them having been in the business for many years, admit that they love the chase. Unfortunately for this poor guy, he chose the wrong place to drive erratically and then flee for whatever reason: past due child support, no license, no insurance, parking tickets, etc.. Once again, real police work means getting the license plate number and arresting the man when he doesn't expect it and no harm is presented to himself or other civilians. The British do it all of the time, but it's not cowboy enough for American cops. We would rather kill innocents than properly arrest and proportionately punish the guilty.

There was an unrelated armored car robbery. Hence, it was totally irrelevant. It still comes down to the fact this man was gunned down for traffic infractions--driving erratically. My only agenda is that I am an admitted libertarian and find the totally unquestioning cop worship society we have built to be more of a threat than the inflated and hysteric crime statistics the news media generate. We do not need hot pursuit except in the case of violent felons, nor do we need the use of deadly force except to apprehend violent felons. Let the others go and get their license tags. Then do the footwork to find them in less threatening circumstances. I'll bet you loved the murder of the Branch Davidians, when all the ATF/FBI had to do was wait to execute their warrant when Koresch left the property as he often did. (One warrant for one man but over a hundred men, women and children dead--justified of course.) But that wouldn't have taught those rebellious dirtbags a lesson, would it?

There is nothing to spin here. The police shot an unarmed man for traffic violations. Another dirtbag learned his lesson for running from the police state. You are the one trying to spin the simple facts.

Just lucky so far.

Your knowledge of the general law of most states is not correct. In most states, one may not defend property with deadly force, only oneself or another from serious imminent bodily injury or death. Additionally, for self-defense to apply, both subjective and objective tests are applied. The defendant must have honestly believed his life was in imminent danger and objectively his life must have been in fact in imminent danger.