They’ve been caught secretly putting cameras in women’s locker rooms, on camera invading men’s homes and working through their belongings for things, and on and on. The list is long and available on this site, but also available at the YouTube channel The Civil Rights Lawer.
He gives us this update. Can you imagine going on record under oath writing the sequence of events and other supposedly factual information about a home invasion your department perpetrated when you were not there? Can you imagine being a prosecutor who brought a case against a man and bringing witnesses, none of whom perpetrated the police attack on the man in court that day as a witness?
This may very well be the most corrupt police department in the nation, and that’s an ignominious list indeed.
We’ve said it hundreds of times, but this guy is a good example of how (a) you never talk to the police, and (b) you never give them permission to do anything. That’s what this crook was seeking.
The LEOs are good examples of highwaymen, simple crooks who steal from others, except in this case, under the color of law. The prosecutor who did this is equally a crook.
Apparently, it’s commonplace across America to teach police officers that conducting an investigation means they can do whatever they want.
Note in this first case that, in order, (a) she stopped the wrong individual, (b) apologized to him, (c) told him pointedly that he had broken no laws, (d) demanded his identification, (e) then told him failure to provide identification was obstructing a police investigation.
Note the logical problem they create for themselves (and the individual they’re stopped). A person has not violated any law, the officer demands ID, the individual is under no legal obligation to provide ID if there isn’t articulable suspicion of a crime, and then the whopper at the end, failure to provide ID is obstructing a police investigation.
Under that schema, there is never a time when an individual can refuse to provide ID because the cop can claim that they are “conducting an investigation” (a fabricated crime that even if it did occur, occurred after the erroneous stop because there was no articulable suspicion of a crime). This is a “Morton’s Fork.” The individual hasn’t committed a crime and thus no ID can be demanded, but an ID can be demanded because the demand itself cannot be refused or else the individual has obstructed an investigation.
This is the game idiots play, and it twists the ruling of the SCOTUS in “Terry Stops.”
Here is the lawsuit. The girl is a wrong and gullible but perhaps teachable, at least until she has her conscience seared by her co-workers. The supervising officer is just plain stupid, reactionary, volatile, bossy, and clearly not a thinking man. He’s perfect to be a cop according to modern hiring practices for LEOs.
The next case is like unto it. The cops demand to come within the property lines because, guess what, “they are conducting an investigation.” There’s that phrase again.
Here’s a quick note to cops everywhere. Conducting an investigation doesn’t give you the right to violate civil rights, regardless of what the wicked instructors have taught you in the police academy. You should know better.
These guys are just as bad as the ones above and obviously couldn’t care less about the constitution or their oaths. They are also obviously bullies.
The “Americans’ Attitudes Toward Legal, Regulated Fishing, Target/Sport Shooting, Hunting, and Trapping” survey, conducted by Responsive Management, was released last month by the Outdoor Stewards of Conservation Foundation, a think tank devoted to communicating trends in outdoor activities.
[ … ]
Public approval of legal hunting dropped 4 percentage points over the past two years, from about 81 percent of Americans in 2021 to 77 percent of Americans this year. Approval of recreational shooting dropped 3 percentage points, and approval of recreational fishing also dropped 3 points, to 90 percent favorability.
Go to Outdoor Life for the rest of the story.
This is not good news. The mantra that has been followed for so many years among the gun owning community is to treat gun club like “fight club.” The first rule of gun club is that you don’t talk about gun club.
If we want to reverse the attitude towards guns and hunting, this will have to change. Not only rural folk and suburbanites, but the urban dwellers must be made to feel more comfortable with our ownership of weapons and use of them for sport.
This slipped past me and I didn’t post on it, but the ATF frame and receiver rule has been vacated by judge Reed O’Connor. More specifically, this is the Vanderstok, et. al., v. Garland case.
This mostly affects folks like Blackhawk Manufacturing, Polymer80, and so forth, who manufactured the 80% lowers. But it’s a win for the 2A.
This is a sickening video. For heaven’s sake – it’s a golden retriever. It’s a golden! How is that guy in any danger? Have you ever been around goldens before? That dog was desperate to make a new friend, that’s all.
That idiot cop deserved all of the opprobrium he got, and much more.
*WARNING* – a dog gets shot in this video
Ohio cop shoots harmless golden retriever with its tail waging then continues shooting the dog as it flees the violent officer and Dixie (the dog) ultimately dies.
I just don’t know what to say any more. Perhaps people will start to wise up rather than the usual, silly, mistaken “back the blue” mantra we hear everywhere. Heroes of the community.
I have tried so hard to explain to those who would listen that you simply cannot keep up the same things and have any community respect at all. Universal hatred of you and what you do will be dangerous for you, making you even more paranoid and mentally unstable than you currently are.
I’ve given suggestions to the police before and then even again. Work as a hired hand on a farm or ranch, or even better, be a volunteer to some farmer or rancher who needs the help. Learn to bale hay; lean to be a Farrier; learn to doctor animals; learn to train dogs; learn to care for animals.
But it seems that they hire the lowest IQ, least mentally stable, and most dangerous to mankind and beasts they can find. As long as this is the case, they will only increase community hatred for themselves.
Again I say, you’re never in more danger than when the police are around. Get away from them as quickly as possible – you, your family and your beasts. There is never a situation so bad and so dire that it cannot be made worse by the presence of the police.
As for me, I know how to handle dogs, and I would have been buddies with that dog in less than a second. I’m not a dog handler (although I could be), I’m just a normal American male. Cops apparently are not.
Participants have been preparing their floats and entries for the event, which is now just a few days away. Dated June 27, but sent out June 28, just 6 days ahead of the festivities, an email landed in their inboxes that caused some to pause.
The organizers of the parade have decided to add an addendum to the rules that were originally sent to entrants. The text of the addendum reads,
“Additionally, in consultation with local public safety officials, the parade organizers add the following parade entry requirement which all entries must follow:
No open carry of weapons or firearms will be permitted. The only exception to this is sworn law enforcement officers, uniformed military Honor Guard personnel or those participating in an authorized armed Color Guard.
This additional parade entry requirement ensures the focus on the parade’s intent to safely celebrate our Nation’s founding. The parade organizers greatly appreciate your adherence to this amended entry requirement.”
“Just as we anticipated, the Supreme Court’s decision to undermine the right to keep and bear arms on public property in Idaho has already begun. Of all the days for the organizers of the parade to put restrictions on the second amendment, it has to be on “Independence Day.” These restrictions by private organizations on public property is only going to get worse. How long before Mayor McLean decides that all Boise city parks will be ran by a nonprofit organization who will then ban firearms throughout the city. It’s coming, unless the legislature acts and fixes the problem.”
Maybe the Idaho supreme court should read state law too. Idaho is a preemption state. Cities, town, townships, etc., cannot be more restrictive than state law.
Let me address the Louisville case second in reverse order from the appearance of the videos. The second video is about a man being told what to do and how he can behave on his own property. Vermont is a communist state, in case you were unaware.
Now to the Louisville case. The ban was ruled unconstitutional under state law, but that’s not what I wanted to observe here. He goes to great lengths to expose this individual as an idiot for shooting warning shot into the air, and then again a second time, explaining that no one should ever do that and certainly no one who watches his channel.
Well, whatever. I wasn’t there so I don’t know. I would discourage random shooting into the air too, but would point out that a bullet will reach terminal velocity with no more increase after that. I wonder what his viewers think happens when an object is thrown into the air?
Anyway, look at it from his perspective. If he had been required to take a shot at a person to defend his life, he would have gotten a visit from the police, been handcuffed, spent some time in prison, and had to spend perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars on a good defense attorney, and then still perhaps lost the case and spent the rest of his life in prison. And no, being a member of USCCA doesn’t guarantee anything, even if you’re innocent.
As it is now, he is not in prison, no one was shot, no one is dead, and the court found in his favor over the charge of discharging a firearm within the city limits (preemption was the issue).
It would be nice if the justices saw Garland’s ploy for what it is, i.e., to amend the protocol in the NYSRPA v. Bruen case (analogue laws at the time of the founding as the only justification for a gun control law today). Garland and the rest of the communists in NY, Illinois, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey and elsewhere utterly hate the Bruen decision. You see, they know the Bruen test should force them to lose the case, but they are going for the sympathy vote, and if they get it, the SCOTUS will have violated its on standard, thus modifying the Bruen protocol.
It would be nice if the SCOTUS didn’t just ignore the fact that Rahimi is a fairy bad actor and celebrate it as an example of constitutional protections for everyone, not just those whom the communists feel have good moral character. That standard is malleable and will go to serve no one’s interests except for the communists.
But I doubt that all of the justices who voted in the affirmative for Bruen will find the same way in Rahimi. I doubt that Roberts, Barrett and Cavanaugh will be on our side.
2 years, 11 months ago
