Just so you know. That came from the Declaration of Independence. And yes, a violent revolution was needed because, well, they brought guns and said we couldn’t peacefully assemble and exercise free speech.
Well, no. A violent revolution occurred because a handful of the richest people in the country felt like they shouldn’t have to pay taxes and they were able to bullshit the masses into going along with it.
The Tea Party has more in common with the Founding Fathers than most people realize.
And all along I thought it had something to do with the Intolerable Acts, which IIRC, had something to do with a tea party in Boston, so you’re half right.
Speaking hypothetically: if you were suffering from disordered thinking, do you think one of the signs would be that you couldn’t find *anyone *who agreed with you?
I mean, everyone’s a special snowflake, but if you’re such a special snowflake that everyone who talks to you tells you you’re crazy, maybe you’re less of an iconoclast and more of a lunatic?
In April 1775, British General Gage ordered 700 British soldiers to march to Concord, MA and seize the firearms, gun powder, and flints that the colonists had stored there. They were also ordered to arrest Samuel Adams and John Hancock if possible.
When British Major John Pitcairn arrived at Lexington, MA his soldiers found 70 colonial minutemen (ie armed farmers) blocking their path. Pitcairn twice ordered the colonist to disperse. At that point, someone fired the “shot heard around the world” and the violent American Revolution began.
After routing these minutemen, Pitcairn continued on to Concord where he found more armed colonists who intended to stop the British governments attempt to confiscate colonial firearms. Under fire, Pitcairn ordered his troops back to Boston.
According to - *A British officer who took part in the skirmish at Lexington described the event in a letter to the Massachusetts Governor shortly after:
"Lieut. Col. Smith to Governor Gage Boston, April 22, 1775.
Sir, In obedience to your Excellency’s commands, I marched on the evening of the 18th inst. with the corps of grenadiers and light infantry for Concord, to execute your Excellency’s orders with respect to destroying all ammunition, artillery, tents, &c., collected there, which was effected, having knocked off the trunnions of three pieces of iron ordnance, some new gun carriages, a great number of carriage wheels burnt, a considerable quantity of flour, some gunpowder and musket balls, with other small articles thrown into the river*.
The grand jury tasked with deciding *whether or not to indict Cleveland police officers Frank Garmback and Timothy Loehmann in connection with 12-year-old Tamir Rice’s death never actually voted on the matter, Cleveland Scene magazine reported on Wednesday.
…
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy McGinty announced on Dec. 28 that the jurors had “declined to indict” the two officers. But according to Cleveland Scene, officials with the county clerk’s office said that there is no document on file showing how the decision was reached.*
asshole
(post shortened)
Why quote RawStory when the RawStory article was cut and pasted from the Cleveland Scene? It appears that Arturo Garcia of Rawstory hasn’t update his story but the original story from the Cleveland Scene has been updated.
from:
*Scene & Heard
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Update (6:00 p.m.):
After two days of calls, the Prosecutor’s Office produced the document in question that states the grand jurors declined to issue criminal charges.
Update II (6:26 p.m.):
Attorney Jonathan S. Abady, a lawyer for Samaria Rice, has issued a statement. It emphasizes, in part, that the family was ensured that a vote of the grand jury would take place.
Update III:
The prosecutor’s office now says that a vote was taken by the grand jury on the issue of whether the shooting was justified. The Washington Post got an explanation from McGinty spokesman Joe Frolik, who also told the paper that while he told Scene his office didn’t have a copy of the document in question, someone did find a copy late Wednesday afternoon after this story was originally published*.
Federal cops are stopped by TN cops in a “policing for profit” scheme in which phony pretenses are made in order to justify civil forfeiture of cash.
The most galling thing about all of this is that not one step that the local cops did is actually illegal. But it’s naked thuggery and blatant to the point where they don’t even try and hide it anymore. That they did it knowingly to a federal cop and didn’t even care is astounding to me.
Grand Juries will almost always fail to indict police officers. The prosecutor can hand-pick the members of the jury, and they usually load those juries with active police officers, retired police officers, and family members of police officers. It’s a remarkably corrupt system.
San Francisco police officer Shante Williams, in defense of the five officers who shot Mario Woods down in the street, who have now returned to active (desk) duty:
Isn’t that nice?
Is cueing a drug-sniffing dog to make a fake “alert”–dishonestly manufacturing cause to search a vehicle–not illegal?
A grand jury convenes in Decatur, Georgia today to determine whether to indict officer Robert Olsen for murderfor shooting an unarmed, naked Anthony Hill.
Georgia is unique in the level of protection it offers to cops who are up before a grand jury. The officer is allowed to be present for the entire testimony, then present his/her own closing statement which cannot be cross-examined.
There have been over 180 fatal shootings by Georgia police since 2010. Nearly half the victims were either unarmed or shot in the back. Only one officer was indicted, and the DA dismissed the indictment the following day.
No, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that it has no interest in adjudicating standards which drug dogs need to comply with or burdens of proof that need to be met with drug dogs with regards to probable cause. As long as the policeman claims the drug dog made a signal, that in and of itself is grounds for probable cause.
Of course, by doing so, the Supreme Court has left a loophole in the 4th amendment large enough to drive a truck through which is only checked by the desire of the police force to enforce justice. But this isn’t the only giant loophole in the 4th amendment, police can just as easily claim they “smelled marijuana” emanating from your vehicle which also opens the ground for probable cause and search and seizure.
The solution isn’t to try and close these loopholes. Rather, it’s to a) end civil forfeiture so that there is no longer motivation for police to target people for personal gain and b) reform police culture from the ground up so that professionalism rather than self interest rules as the overriding desire.
Smapti must be conflicted. Who’s the victim, here? The police officer stopped or the police officers doing the stopping?
I support civil asset forfeiture in principle. The ability to confiscate money and property acquired through crime or used for criminal purposes is a valid and useful weapon in the police’s arsenal.
These kind of fishing expeditions, where people are being pulled over arbitrarily in hopes of finding some cash that they can “suspect” is drug money so they can seize it and keep it for themselves, however, is crossing the line and is not a valid use of police power. Traffic stops should absolutely not be treated like maritime prize courts. I blame the departments themselves for their greed, and the government for enabling this behavior by not properly funding the police and other social services (which also leads to traffic citations as a source of revenue) and in allowing the police to keep what they confiscate. I strongly support reforms that would require a stricter standard of proof before assets can be seized, reasonable limitations on the circumstances under which seizure can take place (confiscating a family home because the teenage son sold a nickel bag out of the garage = not cool), and I would require seizures to go into a fund that neither the department nor the municipal authority profits from and which cannot be used to cover local government expenditures.
How about: assets and funds may be frozen upon indictment and, upon conviction, shall be added to the national police revenue pool (not a reward/booty going to a local police office). I would go so far as to put revenue from fines into the pool, the funds of which get evenly disbursed to all the police departments across the country.
Hypothetical Question: Supposing it was a Congressperson or a member of the TN legislature. Does the same apply? Or does the US/TN Constitution limit this sort of thing?
The constable for the precinct of Raping-Lots-of-Women sentenced to 263 years of remorse. So, at least once in a while, a police officer receives justice.
But he will be out on parole in 80.
Turns out he wasn’t a True Scotsman, though…
Prater must be Smapti’s kin. Another who believes LEOs are more moral than the average citizen.
And the grand jury goes for indictment. I don’t think the DA will reverse this one because he has been pushing this case for grand jury investigation.