Caustic Burno
Well-known member
Dave":2yvasq1c said:The new politically correct term is not looting. It is now known as undocumented shopping.
That is richer than three feet up a bull's ass.
Dave":2yvasq1c said:The new politically correct term is not looting. It is now known as undocumented shopping.
inyati13":3fyhjw9e said:PS: I consider myself and I hope I am correct to do so, a non-racist person. I have had and continue to have numerous associations with people of color. My views as represented here are not based on race. I would have the same view if Mr. Garner was caucasian.
greybeard":9u208vgf said:Slick,
How would one know tho--what charge to indict that ham sanwich with?
It seems to me, that sort of leeway, left solely up to the jury, would mean the jurists would have to know an inordinately large amount of law and legalese in order to be able to decide on their own, what charge to consider. Some of our jurists (and I'll be generous) were borderline illiterate. Most of our cases were drug related-burglary, robbery, manufacture of drugs, intent to distribute, assault, car theft type crimes. If we hadn't been charged before hand (given guidance by prosecutor) most of us, myself included, wouldn't have had a clue exactly which charge would fit the testimony we heard.
slick4591":2bpp6yyv said:greybeard":2bpp6yyv said:Slick,
How would one know tho--what charge to indict that ham sanwich with?
It seems to me, that sort of leeway, left solely up to the jury, would mean the jurists would have to know an inordinately large amount of law and legalese in order to be able to decide on their own, what charge to consider. Some of our jurists (and I'll be generous) were borderline illiterate. Most of our cases were drug related-burglary, robbery, manufacture of drugs, intent to distribute, assault, car theft type crimes. If we hadn't been charged before hand (given guidance by prosecutor) most of us, myself included, wouldn't have had a clue exactly which charge would fit the testimony we heard.
The ham sandwich comes from a statement as to how GJ's can be easily led by a prosecutor. Can't say every state is the same, but I know here each member is allowed to ask questions of witnesses and prosecutors. They can even open up the penal code if they want. Every charge has to be supported by the elements (culpable mental states; knowingly, intentionally, recklessly etc...). I know that this is not something the average person knows, but they can and should given the task they are sworn to.
Caustic Burno":3d1jxng2 said:I totally disagree the last thing we need is more federal intrusion they stir up more crap than cure.
That is a major problem with this country today fed's sticking their finger in local issues for political gain.
Divide and conquer.You have the right to protest and I will defend your right to your opinion of free speech.
This marching as an excuse to loot and be terrorist should dealt with a street sweeper.
boondocks":ob3me817 said:Caustic Burno":ob3me817 said:I totally disagree the last thing we need is more federal intrusion they stir up more crap than cure.
That is a major problem with this country today fed's sticking their finger in local issues for political gain.
Divide and conquer.You have the right to protest and I will defend your right to your opinion of free speech.
This marching as an excuse to loot and be terrorist should dealt with a street sweeper.
CB and Inyati,
I'm not saying a federal prosecutor should handle all criminal matters. (You do realize that you have a federal prosecutor assigned to your federal judicial district? Who do you think prosecutes federal crimes, such as interstate drug trafficking, RICO, etc?). I'm not suggesting a "new" layer of anything, just that in cases of possible conflict of interest, a special prosecutor should be appointed, or a federal one. In some instances, there is just too much at stake for a prosecutor who is beholden to the local police. Federal prosecutors are also usually quite high-caliber. And I think that if an unarmed man is choked to death by cops for selling loose smokes, and those cops stand around for 6 minutes while he dies, offering no assistance, then we have a much bigger problem than "federal intrusion."
Judicial Watch) – Judicial Watch today released internal Department of Justice (DOJ) documents revealing that former IRS official Lois Lerner had been in contact with DOJ officials about the possible criminal prosecution of tax-exempt entities two full years before what the IRS conceded was its "absolutely inappropriate" 2012 targeting of the organizations. According to the newly obtained documents, Lerner met with top Obama DOJ Election Crimes Branch officials as early as October 2010.
"These new documents dramatically show how the Justice Department is up to its neck in the IRS scandal and can't be trusted to investigate crimes associated with the IRS abuses that targeted Obama's critics. And it is of particular concern that the DOJ's Public Integrity Section, which would ordinarily investigate the IRS abuses, is now implicated in the IRS crimes.
Commercialfarmer":1q6iwyih said:There have been some good points made in this thread, and I've learned a few things as I generally do here.
As I said, I read some stuff about this case when it happened and haven't had time to look into the specifics of it again lately. I remember having some questions about the case (they may have been unfounded), but I do understand the need for police compliance and the danger it poses not just to the individual being detained but other around them and very much to the police doing their job.
I think often, people create their own problems. But I've seen some police officers sure provoke it as well.
I think not complying in a constitutionally sound situation is wrong and what comes about from it is the persons own doing.
I also think that you can't vote for a government body, or vote directly to create a black market situation for cigarettes and then be upset when authorities execute the law. I find the tax ridiculous myself, so I think that the voters are ultimately responsible for killing the guy.
More recently, I've also questioned how much police put themselves into situation that didn't need to be created in the first place.
[...]
So in the end, I guess my question is, had I not been compliant, would I have been in the wrong? And would I have been deserving of any ill fate brought about by not being compliant?
Curious on peoples take on this particular situation.
boondocks":36686cg0 said:Caustic Burno":36686cg0 said:I totally disagree the last thing we need is more federal intrusion they stir up more crap than cure.
That is a major problem with this country today fed's sticking their finger in local issues for political gain.
Divide and conquer.You have the right to protest and I will defend your right to your opinion of free speech.
This marching as an excuse to loot and be terrorist should dealt with a street sweeper.
CB and Inyati,
I'm not saying a federal prosecutor should handle all criminal matters. (You do realize that you have a federal prosecutor assigned to your federal judicial district? Who do you think prosecutes federal crimes, such as interstate drug trafficking, RICO, etc?). I'm not suggesting a "new" layer of anything, just that in cases of possible conflict of interest, a special prosecutor should be appointed, or a federal one. In some instances, there is just too much at stake for a prosecutor who is beholden to the local police. Federal prosecutors are also usually quite high-caliber. And I think that if an unarmed man is choked to death by cops for selling loose smokes, and those cops stand around for 6 minutes while he dies, offering no assistance, then we have a much bigger problem than "federal intrusion."
Commercialfarmer":ovn5ynqc said:There have been some good points made in this thread, and I've learned a few things as I generally do here.
As I said, I read some stuff about this case when it happened and haven't had time to look into the specifics of it again lately. I remember having some questions about the case (they may have been unfounded), but I do understand the need for police compliance and the danger it poses not just to the individual being detained but other around them and very much to the police doing their job.
I think often, people create their own problems. But I've seen some police officers sure provoke it as well.
I think not complying in a constitutionally sound situation is wrong and what comes about from it is the persons own doing.
I also think that you can't vote for a government body, or vote directly to create a black market situation for cigarettes and then be upset when authorities execute the law. I find the tax ridiculous myself, so I think that the voters are ultimately responsible for killing the guy.
More recently, I've also questioned how much police put themselves into situation that didn't need to be created in the first place.
I was sitting off a empty side street in a small town in Kansas last month. It was on a Monday night at 10:45 p.m. I had my interior lights on, looking at a map figuring out where I wanted to go. A police officer that had passed up and down the main street about 4 times in front of me decided that I was a danger to society. So he pulled around the block and came up behind me. He surprised me a little bit as I was focused on the map at the moment. Said he was concerned that someone might rear end me sitting there like that. Mind you, he was the only one I saw and I was in the grass off the road way- I might have even been trespassing on the businesses property. He asked what I was doing. I would have thought it was pretty evident with my orange game vest, additional attire, gun case and pointer growling at him from the back. But I told him I had been hunting and was looking at the map. After a bit more of him explaining that if I went down to the end of town I had already come from, and parked in the gas station parking lot where someone might actually hit me, backing out, it would be a safer situation for me. He asked if I would give him my ID (not license) so he could document out contact with his dispatcher.
It's a bs reason to run my license. He knows, I know it, but I don't know if he knows I know. What I do know is that he worded it carefully. I also know that since he didn't at least state a valid reason to actually stop me, giving him a real reason to demand my license be provided, I could have declined to provide it to him. I would have been well within my rights. What I also know, is had I done that, he would have created a reason on the spot to have contact. Pick one of a hundred- real or fabricated.
I did nothing to provoke his contact with me. I could have pulled over on the side of the main road, I didn't. I made a purposeful effort to move out of the flow of any traffic, which was none to begin with except he and I. But because he chose to contact me, for the sake of his curiosity, I could have within my rights inflamed the situation to point of problems- just by invoking my Constitutional rights.
That is the problem with police I see today. Many don't respect the right of privacy or the Constitutional rights of individuals to deny unreasonable searches. He didn't need to run my license. But if you stand up for those rights, you may have be nice to pay. I had already hunted over 10 miles that day and just wanted the guy to leave me alone.
Had he had real concern that I would be rear ended in the grass and said so legitimately, I wouldn't have had a problem. Asking for my ID and taking it back to his car to run is an issue for me. He's not enforcing any laws.
So in the end, I guess my question is, had I not been compliant, would I have been in the wrong? And would I have been deserving of any ill fate brought about by not being compliant?
Curious on peoples take on this particular situation.
boondocks":2e9b9p08 said:Caustic Burno":2e9b9p08 said:I totally disagree the last thing we need is more federal intrusion they stir up more crap than cure.
That is a major problem with this country today fed's sticking their finger in local issues for political gain.
Divide and conquer.You have the right to protest and I will defend your right to your opinion of free speech.
This marching as an excuse to loot and be terrorist should dealt with a street sweeper.
CB and Inyati,
I'm not saying a federal prosecutor should handle all criminal matters. (You do realize that you have a federal prosecutor assigned to your federal judicial district? Who do you think prosecutes federal crimes, such as interstate drug trafficking, RICO, etc?). I'm not suggesting a "new" layer of anything, just that in cases of possible conflict of interest, a special prosecutor should be appointed, or a federal one. In some instances, there is just too much at stake for a prosecutor who is beholden to the local police. Federal prosecutors are also usually quite high-caliber. And I think that if an unarmed man is choked to death by cops for selling loose smokes, and those cops stand around for 6 minutes while he dies, offering no assistance, then we have a much bigger problem than "federal intrusion."
Commercialfarmer":27mkcoka said:So in the end, I guess my question is, had I not been compliant, would I have been in the wrong? And would I have been deserving of any ill fate brought about by not being compliant? Curious on peoples take on this particular situation.
slick4591":1uuc60iv said:Some people sure have lots of critiques, but they never offer solutions.
gimpyrancher":1yh40cws said:slick4591":1yh40cws said:Some people sure have lots of critiques, but they never offer solutions.
Only solutions necessary; Deport all Tea Party Republicans as Anti-American inhabitants. Deport all political party "leaders" to Mexico, in both parties. Make all overseas Multi-National corporations pay their American Taxes on world wide income. A flat tax on income with no tax breaks. Invalidate all foreign Trade agreements. Bring back American pride, jobs and the middle class. Get rid of Two Party Politics (really only one now), make our elected officials unpaid volunteers for one term only. Close the Supreme Court and remove all their benefits. Bring back Unions. Implement proportional representation. Implement a Carbon Tax. Hold corporations accountable. Dissolve corporations that do not benefit America and let their investors pay the price.
Shall I continue?
gimpyrancher":14wltstd said:slick4591":14wltstd said:Some people sure have lots of critiques, but they never offer solutions.
Only solutions necessary; Deport all Tea Party Republicans as Anti-American inhabitants. Deport all political party "leaders" to Mexico, in both parties. Make all overseas Multi-National corporations pay their American Taxes on world wide income. A flat tax on income with no tax breaks. Invalidate all foreign Trade agreements. Bring back American pride, jobs and the middle class. Get rid of Two Party Politics (really only one now), make our elected officials unpaid volunteers for one term only. Close the Supreme Court and remove all their benefits. Bring back Unions. Implement proportional representation. Implement a Carbon Tax. Hold corporations accountable. Dissolve corporations that do not benefit America and let their investors pay the price.
Shall I continue?