Incase you can’t see the video:
Remember, it takes a great prosecutor to convict an innocent man.
State Sponsored Criminal: Aaron Brockler
Because when you think that someone’s guilty, do everything you can to intimidate others into lying to support your version of the story.
via Rob Halvorson
Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and three or more times is enemy action. It appears they are concerned about his mental state and if that is the case I hope he gets the help he needs. That said, if it had been you or I would they be so concerned about our mental state or just tossing us in jail?
State Sponsored Criminal: Andrew Marculaitis
Because when you’re a cop and you go unstable, you get a pass that no one else gets.
Remember though, these men should be allowed to be armed while you are forcibly disarmed and the act of defending yourself against them automatically a felony.
State Sponsored Criminal: Ryan Allen West
Because when you’re a cop, you get the authority of the state behind you and a gun on your hip while your victims are just allowed to cower in fear.
To be sure, rummaging around through people’s personal papers may well turn up the occasional bad guy, but that is not the only consideration. No doubt law enforcement agents would also find it useful to walk into people’s homes at will, but we don’t allow them to do so because that would intrude on our reasonable expectation of privacy in our homes. And just as we reasonably expect privacy in our homes, so, too, do we expect that border agents will not base their decisions to search through our electronic information on a whim or a hunch. Put another way, requiring law enforcement agents to possess objective reasons for a search is a feature of our constitutional framework, not a bug.
(Emphasis mine.)
Brian Hauss – DHS Releases Disappointing Civil Liberties Report on Border Searches of Laptops and Other Electronics
June 5th, 2013
[For those who haven’t heard yet. The DHS is claiming the following line of BS regarding searches at the border.
[A]dding a heightened [suspicion-based] threshold requirement could be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefit. First, commonplace decisions to search electronic devices might be opened to litigation challenging the reasons for the search. In addition to interfering with a carefully constructed border security system, the litigation could directly undermine national security by requiring the government to produce sensitive investigative and national security information to justify some of the most critical searches. Even a policy change entirely unenforceable by courts might be problematic; we have been presented with some noteworthy CBP and ICE success stories based on hard-to-articulate intuitions or hunches based on officer experience and judgment. Under a reasonable suspicion requirement, officers might hesitate to search an individual’s device without the presence of articulable factors capable of being formally defended, despite having an intuition or hunch based on experience that justified a search.
Translation: “We don’t need to specify a reason why we are seizing and searching your property.”
Now many may have forgotten so I will provide you an extra reminder of the area the DHS would like to claim as free from that pesky 4th Amendment.
For more on that go back and read my article on it (dated 2008). So think about what the department of homeland security is claiming as within their legal abilities, and then think long and hard about that map where they can put up “border inspection points” at will. Think your safe just because you don’t regularly travel out of the country? Get real.
Listen folks, you either have these rights or you don’t. They’re not predicated on some theory that you surrender them because you want to do X. NO! If the government wants to search my personal effects, they must present a case including evidence that I have committed a crime, or that I intend to harm another. *Note I said harm, the war on drugs needs to go to!* The only way you end up with this current view of the law is through twisted perversion and a lackadaisical attitude that say “I don’t care, what’s it matter?”
Just because I want to fly to visit my friends in Nashville, doesn’t mean I surrender my 4th amendment rights and agree to have someone fondle me and my wife. It’s horse crap and frankly if we don’t stop it, it will just get worse. There’s two options for stopping it, we get the courts to do their damn job, or well, use your imagination for the second option.
News flash folks, in a free land bad people some times end up doing bad things. Its comes with territory. Honestly though even in your perfect police state, the crazy guy can still do damage, even more so due to the delayed response. Grow a pair, embrace the responsibility and with it experience freedom. It’s freaking AWESOME. –B]
I’d be interested to know what the sentencing guidelines are for this. But I can tell you even at the maximum sentence it is merely a slap on the wrist relative to what he’s done.
Why does he make the full count though beyond the lenient sentence? Well his department covered for him.
State Sponsored Criminal: Scott R. Womack
Because when you’re a cop, they can’t say no to what you tell them to do on the side of the road. Their only option is to pray they get caught, even then they’ll only slap my wrist.
If you’ve never heard the original with all it’s oddities.
Powerman 5000 – Whip It
The same threat of “terrorism” was used to justify the no-pedestrian, no-stopping zones near the venue. The police laid out their logic: they had “no specific intelligence” regarding a terror threat. However, in recent incidents, such as Boston and Woolwich, there had been no intelligence prior to the attack. Therefore the lack of any threat of a terror attack fitted exactly the profile of a terror attack. The lack of a threat was a threat. Welcome to 1984.
Charlie Skelton – Bilderberg 2013: welcome to 1984
June 5th, 2013
[Translation.
We have found no actionable intelligence about you. Therefor you must be a terrorist and an enemy combatant in the war on terror. Please board the bus to Gitmo immediately or we will kill you. Thanks!
-The Government
Someone nailed it on the head about “necessity.” God help us because tell me, when was the last time a body of the state willfully surrendered powers it created? -B]
Well this put a smile on my face though I want to see some jail time go along with it.
Given the power of a prosecutor he should be held personally accountable and it should take a court of law to prove his that he was acting in the interests of the state in good faith. When you do something that breaks the rules, you should pay, not the tax payers.
h/t Rob Halvorson
Raw Feed
FeedBurner Feed
Subscribe by Email