 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / December 2007No charges against armed reporter.
MIAMI - No charges will be pursued against a television reporter who was arrested near a school while carrying a loaded gun, authorities said Tuesday. Jeffrey Weinsier of WPLG-TV, an ABC network affiliate, was arrested in late October after police said he carried a weapon onto the grounds of Miami Central High School and refused to cross the street when asked by an officer. The encounter was caught by a cameraman on videotape, which the state attorney's office used to decide that no charges would be filed against Weinsier, Assistant State Attorney Maggie Gerson wrote in a memo released Tuesday. Weinsier had faced charges of armed trespass on school property, possession of a weapon, violation of carrying a concealed weapon and resisting arrest without violence. Weinsier, who was investigating a story on school violence, was not on school grounds when approached by police and ordered to leave, Gerson said. ``Since the defendant was not trespassing, anything that was found on the defendant after he was arrested will be suppressed as a matter of law,'' Gerson wrote. Weinsier's actions did not appear disruptive and students had been dismissed from classes when he was arrested, Gerson said. The reporter began carrying a gun after he received death threats stemming from a series he did about unsanitary conditions at restaurants, according to the station. Weinsier has a concealed weapons permit, police had said. ``From day one, I knew that I had been on the public sidewalk outside the school,'' Weinsier said Tuesday. ``I knew the law clearly. This is false arrest.'' The reporter said he has filed a formal complaint with the Miami-Dade Schools Police Department and is reviewing the possibility of legal action. Now that stuff will really hit the fan. False arrest, violation of the reporter's constitutional rights, violation of freedom of the press, violation of the right to keep and bear arms, perjury, false imprisonment and who knows what else. The lawyers will have a field day. Lee ________________________________ It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion. WILLIAM RALPH INGE, D. D. 1860-1954 > Now that stuff will really hit the fan. False arrest, violation of the > reporter's constitutional rights, violation of freedom of the press, > violation of the right to keep and bear arms, perjury, false imprisonment > and who knows what else. The lawyers will have a field day. One lawyer in particular gets to eat his words, again. >> Now that stuff will really hit the fan. False arrest, violation of the >> reporter's constitutional rights, violation of freedom of the press, >> violation of the right to keep and bear arms, perjury, false imprisonment >> and who knows what else. The lawyers will have a field day. > > One lawyer in particular gets to eat his words, again. I know. Ain't life grand? Lee >> One lawyer in particular gets to eat his words, again. > > I know. Ain't life grand? Wonder if eating his words breaks his diet....... Funny, local rag mentioned the no charges, but not the counter actions considered. Ain't liberal slanted news just grand? Curtis > >> One lawyer in particular gets to eat his words, again. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Funny, local rag mentioned the no charges, but not the counter actions > considered. Ain't liberal slanted news just grand? So you apparently agree with Lee that one of the "counter actions" the reporter could have considered was to have shot the cop that "falsely" arrested him? You guys should all join together in a militia and move to Montana. If you stockpile enough weaponry, no cops will try to "falsely" arrest you. > > >> One lawyer in particular gets to eat his words, again. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > reporter could have considered was to have shot the cop that "falsely" > arrested him? I can see how you could think that shooting the cop was the only "counter action" possible. > You guys should all join together in a militia and move to Montana. > If you stockpile enough weaponry, no cops will try to "falsely" arrest > you. > > > >> One lawyer in particular gets to eat his words, again. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I can see how you could think that shooting the cop was the only "counter > action" possible. How do you so easily confuse "one of" with "the only"? Lee never suggested it was "the only", nor did I. Lee suggested it was "one of" and I suggested he was sick for saying so. All those chiming in on Lee's behalf are likewise sick. There can be no justification to shoot a cop unless that cop is illegally using deadly force against someone. "False arrest" unless accompanied by said illegal deadly force is never a justification to shoot a cop as Lee so sickly suggested. Do you agree with Lee, as his ass-swabbers Scott and Curtis so obviously do, that it would have been OK for the reporter to shoot the cop? If so, you too can join my list of sick sociopaths. As soon as Hillary gets elected, I'm forwarding my list to BATF for possible preemptive intervention. > > > > >> One lawyer in particular gets to eat his words, again. > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > How do you so easily confuse "one of" with "the only"? I was sick yesterday. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. > Lee never suggested it was "the only", nor did I. Lee suggested it > was "one of" and I suggested he was sick for saying so. All those > chiming in on Lee's behalf are likewise sick. There can be no > justification to shoot a cop unless that cop is illegally using deadly > force against someone. I don't think illegal use of deadly force is the only situation, but mostly I agree with that. > "False arrest" unless accompanied by said > illegal deadly force is never a justification to shoot a cop as Lee so > sickly suggested. Justification? Not in my eyes. Could it have been legal? Who knows, but somehow I doubt it. > Do you agree with Lee, as his ass-swabbers Scott and Curtis so > obviously do, that it would have been OK for the reporter to shoot the > cop? I fail to see where Curtis agreed that the course of action suggested would have been "OK". Perhaps I missed that post. And no, I don't agree that it would have been "OK". > If so, you too can join my list of sick sociopaths. I'm sure I could probably do that anyway. By the way, my first handgun entered my house last week. It's small and easily concealable and it will probably be upgraded soon, but it fits my wife's hand well and I figure that she's more likely to practice with it if it's comfortable. Once she gets proficient, we'll see about upgrading to something with a little more oomph. Besides, it was inexpensive and ammo for it is cheap (comparitively). It's a Bersa 380. > As soon as > Hillary gets elected, I'm forwarding my list to BATF for possible > preemptive intervention. Good luck with that. > By the way, my first handgun entered my house last week. It's small and > easily concealable and it will probably be upgraded soon, but it fits my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It's a Bersa 380. I suspect that ammo for a 9mm would be cheaper since it is a more common caliber... BTW, how did you manage to go all these years without a firearm here in Texas and not get deported? > > By the way, my first handgun entered my house last week. It's small and > > easily concealable and it will probably be upgraded soon, but it fits my [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > BTW, how did you manage to go all these years without a firearm here in > Texas and not get deported? I've talked a good game. >> Lee never suggested it was "the only", nor did I. Lee suggested it >> was "one of" and I suggested he was sick for saying so. All those >> chiming in on Lee's behalf are likewise sick. There can be no >> justification to shoot a cop unless that cop is illegally using deadly >> force against someone. Depends on your definition of use deadly force, doesn't it. The cop was carrying a gun. So was the reporter. The cop used physical force, along with the threat implied by display of the gun, to commit a series of crimes against the reporter. Had the cop drawn and fired, I suppose Greg would admit he had used deadly force against the reporter. By the time things escalated to that point, the reporter would be dead. It's a bit late to defend himself at that point. Greg clearly believes that it is OK for the police to violate Constitutional Rights at their discression, backed up by deadly force, but that it is not OK for a law abiding citizen, or the press, to defend their rights in the same manner. He's wrong. It's not the first time. >> As soon as Hillary gets elected, I'm forwarding my list to BATF for >> possible >> preemptive intervention. About par for the course. It's illegal for authorities to share the information, but Greg thinks it's find for him to do so. As usual, the law applies to everyone else. Greg's above all of that. > >> Lee never suggested it was "the only", nor did I. Lee suggested it > >> was "one of" and I suggested he was sick for saying so. All those [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > escalated to that point, the reporter would be dead. It's a bit late to > defend himself at that point. Your digging your hole even deeper, sicko. How the f.ck can you represent "the law" in the U.S. if you have such a hard time coming up with a definition of deadly force? Now you're supporting shooting cops preemptively, because they have the potential to use deadly force because they're armed? So any time that I get stopped by a cop in traffic and I don't think I did anything wrong, it's OK to shoot the cop in the face and drive on, and if I get arrested for murder I'll simply tell them I was using Lee's rationale of defending myself from potentially deadly force? What an idiot. It's scary you're representing U.S. "law" enforcement, but I suppose it's no different than any other branch of our corrupt and incompetent government. > Greg clearly believes that it is OK for the police to violate Constitutional > Rights at their discression, backed up by deadly force, but that it is not > OK for a law abiding citizen, or the press, to defend their rights in the > same manner. He's wrong. It's not the first time. Clearly? Only clearly to a moron. I fully suppose the false-arrestee's right to redress in the appropriate forum. If the cop falsely arrested the reporter, then go ahead and sue the department with my blessing. I'm merely pointing out how ludicrous and potentially dangerous is your suggestion of shooting the cop. > About par for the course. It's illegal for authorities to share the > information, but Greg thinks it's find for him to do so. As usual, the law > applies to everyone else. Greg's above all of that. Huh? WTF are you babbling about now? Illegal to share the information that you're warped and IMO should be immediately suspended and disarmed until further evaluation? Have you been tested for Alzheimer's lately? > > How do you so easily confuse "one of" with "the only"? > > I was sick yesterday. > > That's my story and I'm sticking to it. > I don't think illegal use of deadly force is the only situation, but mostly > I agree with that. How's about illegal use of deadly force or force likely to cause great bodily harm? I think that's textbook self-defense grounds, though it's been a long time since Crim Law. Basically anything less than great bodily harm or death is considered reversible or compensable enough to require the cop's "victim" to seek after-the-fact redress in the appropriate forum, i.e. sue the pigs in court. Now it would suck, for example, if the cop shot your dog because he felt like it. But there's no court in this country that would excuse you for shooting the cop in retaliation. > > "False arrest" unless accompanied by said > > illegal deadly force is never a justification to shoot a cop as Lee so > > sickly suggested. > > Justification? Not in my eyes. Could it have been legal? Who knows, but > somehow I doubt it. No, it could not have been legal. That's why it confounds and sickens me that a supposed LEO such as Lee would even suggest such an idea. It certainly gives people the wrong message. There are a lot of sicko suckups reading this group who probably read Lee's post and thought, "gee, the next time a cop tries to stop me for speeding and I'm going the flow of traffic, I'll shoot out his tires" or something else along those lines. Heck, just yesterday, a guy who read Lee's post shot his mailman for delivering the mail late. Mailmen have had it coming to them for years, to be sure, and they're hardly innocent of inflicting random workplace shootings, but I believe shooting them is improperly bypassing the normal complaint and grievance procedures. http://www.14wfie.com/global/story.asp?s=7359922 > I fail to see where Curtis agreed that the course of action suggested would > have been "OK". > > Perhaps I missed that post. It's implied in Curtis's full support of everything Lee posts and his full damnation of everything I post, even though he's too scared to actually read what I post. If he's not brave enough to stand up for himself and damn Lee's homicidal suggestions, then I'm afraid he's one of "them". > And no, I don't agree that it would have been "OK". Then you're not one of "them". You're safe from Hillary. For now. > I'm sure I could probably do that anyway. By the way, my first handgun > entered my house last week. It's small and easily concealable and it will > probably be upgraded soon, but it fits my wife's hand well and I figure that > she's more likely to practice with it if it's comfortable. Once she gets > proficient, we'll see about upgrading to something with a little more oomph. > Besides, it was inexpensive and ammo for it is cheap (comparitively). All the more reason for you to treat her nicely, and I just hope for your sake she's not prone to violent PMS. > Good luck with that. If I stick the list in with a contribution, I'm sure she'll take it more seriously. >>>How do you so easily confuse "one of" with "the only"? >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > because he felt like it. But there's no court in this country that > would excuse you for shooting the cop in retaliation. I have drawn on a cop entering my property and menaced by my dog to prevent him from shooting my dog (his weapon was unholstered and aimed before I could get there). I made him state his business before calling of the dog and reholstering my weapon. THe supervisor deemed it justified, and no charges were brought. IT was interesting there for a while. (I did not make any friends that day....)  Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 > > I'm sure I could probably do that anyway. By the way, my first handgun > > entered my house last week. It's small and easily concealable and it will [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > All the more reason for you to treat her nicely, and I just hope for > your sake she's not prone to violent PMS. What justification have I given you to think that I would be stupid enough to provide a loaded gun to a woman prone to violent PMS? Oh, and I treat her nicely anyway. > > > I'm sure I could probably do that anyway. By the way, my first handgun > > > entered my house last week. It's small and easily concealable and it [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > What justification have I given you to think that I would be stupid enough > to provide a loaded gun to a woman prone to violent PMS? None. Unfortunately hormone balances can change in women as they age. Keep a close eye on her. >> > > I'm sure I could probably do that anyway. By the way, my first handgun >> > > entered my house last week. It's small and easily concealable and it [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >None. Unfortunately hormone balances can change in women as they >age. Keep a close eye on her. These guys aren't complete idiots. Sure they all give their wives guns, but they also all make a point of having more and bigger guns for themselves, don't they? Mayhap that's why they all covet Barretts. They all hold such respect for their wives. JF > On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:07:42 -0800 (PST), Greg Mossman > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > for themselves, don't they? Mayhap that's why they all covet Barretts. > They all hold such respect for their wives. If they were really smart, they'd give them pistolas with the firing pins filed down. It's not like they were ever going to use the things anyway. > > "Greg Mossman" <moss...@qnet.com> wrote in message news:e49fa17b-032f-4574-b9b7-7a2993784c36@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > I'm sure I could probably do that anyway. By the way, my first handgun > > > > entered my house last week. It's small and easily concealable and it [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > None. Unfortunately hormone balances can change in women as they > age. Keep a close eye on her. I've got her on vitamin pills already because she started getting too moody around that time of the month. I told her one day that I could always tell when she was on the rag because she would start having abnormal mood swings. over the next few months, we assembled a collection of vitamins that keep her pretty centered (no massive swings). If things get out of hand again, I'm sure we'll take appropriate measures. > I told her one day that I could always tell when she was on the rag because > she would start having abnormal mood swings. over the next few months, we > assembled a collection of vitamins that keep her pretty centered (no massive > swings). If things get out of hand again, I'm sure we'll take appropriate > measures. Isn't that a cite from "Shining". (The gostly barkeeper giving advice to Jack Nicholson about taking measures against misbehaving wife) Matthias > > I told her one day that I could always tell when she was on the rag because > > she would start having abnormal mood swings. over the next few months, we [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Matthias You know... now that you mention it... and Mr. King is one of my favorite authors. > > > I told her one day that I could always tell when she was on the rag > because [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > You know... now that you mention it... and Mr. King is one of my favorite > authors. You're in Texas. Use a chainsaw. >>>>>>>One lawyer in particular gets to eat his words, again. >>> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > It's a Bersa 380. single stack or double stack? >>As soon as >>Hillary gets elected, I'm forwarding my list to BATF for possible >>preemptive intervention. > > Good luck with that. Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 > > I'm sure I could probably do that anyway. By the way, my first handgun > > entered my house last week. It's small and easily concealable and it will [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > single stack or double stack? Single. My wife has small hands. Does Bersa even make a double stack 380? >>>I'm sure I could probably do that anyway. By the way, my first handgun >>>entered my house last week. It's small and easily concealable and it [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Does Bersa even make a double stack 380? They used to. I own 3. Want one? I have too many small handguns. Besides, I need a new 1911. Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 > >>>I'm sure I could probably do that anyway. By the way, my first handgun > >>>entered my house last week. It's small and easily concealable and it [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Want one? I have too many small handguns. I'm sure that the gun I just bought will be the only 380 I ever own. I wouldn't have bought it except that it fit my wife's hand so well and I wanted her to be as comfortable as possible while she learns to shoot. Once she's reasonably proficient, we'll start looking at something with a little more stopping power. Perhaps a 9mm or a 357. > Besides, I need a new 1911. ____________________________________________________________________________ > America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ > "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; > the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 >>>>>I'm sure I could probably do that anyway. By the way, my first handgun >>>>>entered my house last week. It's small and easily concealable and it [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > 22:3 GO big or go home. .45. Seriously. Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 > I fail to see where Curtis agreed that the course of action suggested > would > have been "OK". > > Perhaps I missed that post. You missed nothing, I never said or implied anything about the actions of the reporter. I made comment on the lack of reporting of the complaint filed and possible legal action against the police, without making public my opinion on that either, other than lack of reporting implies covering up an unpopular to liberals idea. Curtis <inverted> > Do you agree with Lee, as his ass-swabbers Scott and Curtis so > obviously do, that it would have been OK for the reporter to shoot the > cop? That's not what he said. > If so, you too can join my list of sick sociopaths. As soon as > Hillary gets elected, I'm forwarding my list to BATF for possible > preemptive intervention. Dream away. >> I can see how you could think that shooting the cop was the only "counter >> action" possible. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > justification to shoot a cop unless that cop is illegally using deadly > force against someone. Which is what Lee said. > "False arrest" unless accompanied by said > illegal deadly force is never a justification to shoot a cop as Lee so > sickly suggested. Thanks again, though, for clearly stating your position that citizens should submit to any arrest, no matter how illegal, submissively, unless loss of life is imminent. Signature"If you guys would just settle to earth and admit that guns are just noisy potentially dangerous tools and quit waving them around like a steel dick then there's be no need for discussions like this." - JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Nov 15, 7:16 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > Lee never suggested it was "the only", nor did I. Lee suggested it > > was "one of" and I suggested he was sick for saying so. All those [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Which is what Lee said. Hardly. Archives don't lie. Even in this very thread he uttered: "Depends on your definition of use deadly force, doesn't it. The cop was carrying a gun. So was the reporter. The cop used physical force, along with the threat implied by display of the gun, to commit a series of crimes against the reporter. Had the cop drawn and fired, I suppose Greg would admit he had used deadly force against the reporter. By the time things escalated to that point, the reporter would be dead. It's a bit late to defend himself at that point." A reporter arrested for carrying a gun near a school, no suggestion that the cop used undue force, no suggestion that the reporter would be unfairly treated by our system of justice, yet Lee suggests shooting the cop because of the "physical force" of handcuffing the reporter? Sick. If any cop threatened me with action on false ground and false pretext, I'd be worried about his state of mind. If he displayed a gun to ponder his cause, I might see a case for emergency response. Matthias > On Nov 15, 7:16 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Sick. SignatureVK exquis. mod. Gesch.haus in ruh. Wohnl.3 WE, ehem. Praxis, ca. 350/1000 qm WF/Grdst. 19km nördl. Braunschweig , hochw. einger; Nah VW, Hafen; frei, 0160-4433698 o. 0911-7809081. Gut für Arzt/RA/Ing.büro, oder ruhiges Wohnen, Bilder vorh. > If any cop threatened me with action on false ground and > false pretext, I'd be worried about his state of mind. > If he displayed a gun to ponder his cause, I might see a > case for emergency response. > > Matthias Most (patrol) cops in America have their guns on display whenever they are on duty. Assuming, of course, that "in sight" is more or less the same as "on display." In article <705882cd-2277-468d-a0f0- 3e9dead36fcf@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, mossman@qnet.com says... -On Nov 15, 7:16 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" -<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: - -> > Lee never suggested it was "the only", nor did I. Lee suggested it -> > was "one of" and I suggested he was sick for saying so. All those -> > chiming in on Lee's behalf are likewise sick. There can be no -> > justification to shoot a cop unless that cop is illegally using deadly -> > force against someone. -> -> Which is what Lee said. - -Hardly. - -Archives don't lie. - -Even in this very thread he uttered: "Depends on your definition of -use deadly force, doesn't it. The cop was -carrying a gun. So was the reporter. The cop used physical force, -along with -the threat implied by display of the gun, to commit a series of -crimes -against the reporter. Had the cop drawn and fired, I suppose Greg -would -admit he had used deadly force against the reporter. By the time -things -escalated to that point, the reporter would be dead. It's a bit late -to -defend himself at that point." - -A reporter arrested for carrying a gun near a school, no suggestion -that the cop used undue force, no suggestion that the reporter would -be unfairly treated by our system of justice, yet Lee suggests -shooting the cop because of the "physical force" of handcuffing the -reporter? - -Sick. and yet the reporter apparently did no act of aggression towards anyone which would be sufficient to interest an impartial cop. of course he may have been thinking unapproved thoughts. - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > -A reporter arrested for carrying a gun near a school . . . Not even close. It's not against the law to carry a gun, with a permit, near a school.. > . . . no suggestion - that the cop used undue force . . . In Greg's world, being forcably arrested, as in physically restrained by force, for something that is not a crime, isn't undue force. It is in everyone else's world. > . . . no suggestion that the reporter would - be unfairly treated by our > system of justice . . . In Greg's world, being forcably arrested for something that is not a crime, is being trated faily by our system of justice. In everyone else's world, it's not. You can bet your last penny, that if Greg had been walking down a sidewalk, legally going about his business, and he had been manhandled, cuffed and arrested for something that isn't a crime, he'd be crying foul all over the place. Since it happened to someone else, however, it's OK. Yeah, right. What a fool. > > -A reporter arrested for carrying a gun near a school . . . > > Not even close. It's not against the law to carry a gun, with a permit, near > a school.. The cop thought it was. Obviously cops aren't experts on all the laws on "the books". You're a supreme example of that. > > . . . no suggestion - that the cop used undue force . . . > > In Greg's world, being forcably arrested, as in physically restrained by > force, for something that is not a crime, isn't undue force. It is in > everyone else's world. In Greg's world, being forcably [sic] arrested (unless you mean he's trying to stab me with a fork) certainly is no grounds for shooting a cop even if the cop was in error. Heck, I thought the cop was mistaken all four times that I've been arrested, but I never shot any of them. Maybe I need to get me a gun. > In Greg's world, being forcably arrested for something that is not a crime, > is being trated faily by our system of justice. In everyone else's world, > it's not. So in everyone else's world, they shoot the cop? There'd be a lot more dead cops if that were the case. Hey, nitespark and any other real cops out there, ever arrested someone who really didn't do it? Lee says they were within their rights to shoot you. You're lucky you're still alive. Fortunately Lee is just an idiot and his words bear no relation to reality. > You can bet your last penny, that if Greg had been walking down a sidewalk, > legally going about his business, and he had been manhandled, cuffed and > arrested for something that isn't a crime, he'd be crying foul all over the > place. Since it happened to someone else, however, it's OK. Yeah, right. Remember, Lee, I'm not a whiner like you. You'd be crying to be sure. I don't cry over spilt milk. Getting arrested is really no big deal, certainly not worth killing a cop. > Getting arrested is really no big deal, certainly not worth killing a cop. Whew! That's a relief. I've been feeling like I compromised my manhood by not shooting that cop who wrongfully arrested me years ago. And I felt even worse cuz I wasn't even packin' when heput me in the back seat. You, sir, are my hero, at least until the football game this weekend. JF > On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:05:44 -0800 (PST), Greg Mossman > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > seat. You, sir, are my hero, at least until the football game this > weekend. The one time I was "resisting" enough to be hog-tied in the back seat, I started to kick the windows. That pissed him off enough to threaten to stop the car and kick my a.s if I didn't settle down. Even though this was years before Rodney King and I was certainly in no rational state of mind at the time, I still had enough sense at that point to remain meek and motionless until I got to the relative safety of the holding cell. Of course if I had had my piece, I would have shot the abusive bastard just like Lee told me to. >> Getting arrested is really no big deal, certainly not worth killing a >> cop. > > Whew! That's a relief. I've been feeling like I compromised my manhood As if. > by not shooting that cop who wrongfully arrested me years ago. And I > felt even worse cuz I wasn't even packin' when heput me in the back > seat. You, sir, are my hero, at least until the football game this > weekend. > > JF Signature"If you guys would just settle to earth and admit that guns are just noisy potentially dangerous tools and quit waving them around like a steel dick then there's be no need for discussions like this." - JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 > > Whew! That's a relief. I've been feeling like I compromised my manhood > As if. Gotta have it to compromise it. Wouldn't this normally be called a "me-too"? Or is that another one of those hypocritical acts that define his sorry excuse for character? It's kind of odd how emasculated "males" have to get comfortable with their emasculation by trying to emasculate others. >>>-A reporter arrested for carrying a gun near a school . . . >> >>Not even close. It's not against the law to carry a gun, with a permit, near >>a school.. > > The cop thought it was. I doubt that. I think he was just planning to be mean. > Obviously cops aren't experts on all the laws > on "the books". That's one of the reasons you have the 2nd amendment. > In Greg's world, being forcably [sic] arrested (unless you mean he's > trying to stab me with a fork) certainly is no grounds for shooting a > cop even if the cop was in error. How was the guy to know the cop was for real? >>In Greg's world, being forcably arrested for something that is not a crime, >>is being trated faily by our system of justice. In everyone else's world, >>it's not. Depends on what you long for. > So in everyone else's world, they shoot the cop? There'd be a lot > more dead cops if that were the case. Got numbers? May be most cops just understand the laws and act acordingly? > Hey, nitespark and any other real cops out there, ever arrested > someone who really didn't do it? Lee says they were within their > rights to shoot you. You're lucky you're still alive. Crooks, for the most part, know the laws as well, and act accordingly, too. > Remember, Lee, I'm not a whiner like you. You'd be crying to be > sure. I don't cry over spilt milk. Getting arrested is really no big > deal, certainly not worth killing a cop. Individual preference. Rule No. 2. Matthias >>>Not even close. It's not against the law to carry a gun, with a permit, >>>near>>a school.. >> The cop thought it was. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, for me or the cop. >> Obviously cops aren't experts on all the laws on "the books". > That's one of the reasons you have the 2nd amendment. >>> So in everyone else's world, they shoot the cop? There'd be a lot more >>> dead cops if that were the case. > Got numbers? > May be most cops just understand the laws and act acordingly? Now there's a thought. Wonder why it didn't occur to Greg. >> Hey, nitespark and any other real cops out there, ever arrested >> someone who really didn't do it? Lee says they were within their >> rights to shoot you. You're lucky you're still alive. I don't know this guy Lee he keeps talking about. I certainly didn't say anything like that. First, I didn't say anything about whether or not the guy did it. What I said was that what he was arrested for was a false charge, that the cop arrested him for something that was not a crime and even lied to make it appear he was justified. What I said was it was false arrest, that it was a violation of his constitutionsl right to free speech, freedom of the press and right to keep and bear arms. > I don't know this guy Lee he keeps talking about. I certainly didn't say > anything like that. Only one person is saying you did, and it's just an exemplification of his lack of character and integrity. <el snippo> > What I said was it was false > arrest, that it was a violation of his constitutionsl right to free speech, > freedom of the press and right to keep and bear arms. All the things these liberal socialists would deny to anyone who doesn't buy their bullshit. Simultaneously unerring support for criminals like the Klintons and scream and holler about corruption in Republicans. > I don't know this guy Lee he keeps talking about. I certainly didn't say > anything like that. First, I didn't say anything about whether or not the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > arrest, that it was a violation of his constitutionsl right to free speech, > freedom of the press and right to keep and bear arms. Maybe it was the other Lee Bell who suggested the reporter would have been within his rights to "defend" himself from the mistaken misdemeanor arrest by shooting the cop. The archives certainly don't lie. Will the real Lee Bell please stand up? >> I don't know this guy Lee he keeps talking about. I certainly didn't say >> anything like that. First, I didn't say anything about whether or not the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Will the real Lee Bell please stand up? That's not what you said that he said. Signature"If you guys would just settle to earth and admit that guns are just noisy potentially dangerous tools and quit waving them around like a steel dick then there's be no need for discussions like this." - JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Nov 17, 10:48 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > >> I don't know this guy Lee he keeps talking about. I certainly didn't say > >> anything like that. First, I didn't say anything about whether or not the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > That's not what you said that he said. Cite? > So in everyone else's world, they shoot the cop? There'd be a lot > more dead cops if that were the case. > > Hey, nitespark and any other real cops out there, ever arrested > someone who really didn't do it? Lee says they were within their > rights to shoot you. You're lucky you're still alive. Actually I can't say I ever arrested someone for a crime they did not commit. Had plenty of them found "not guilty", but that only means I couldn't prove the crime in court. However, I read the original post by Lee on this and based soley on the news account I had some serious questions regarding the officer's actions. I kept in mind that what I was reading could not be viewed as an unbiased source of information. The reporter was on the street side of the fence and hence on public property. You can't get much more defined in property curtilage than a fence. I am also unfamiliar with Fla. law. Virginia has a law about carrying firearms on school property and another law about illegal drugs within 1000 ft of school property. However, there is caselaw that supports the right to resist an unlawful arrest up to an including deadly force. Plummer vs State, 136 Ind 306 and John Bad Elk vs US, 177 US 529. I have not read those opinions and I am certain the SCOTUS very narrowly defined those conditions in which any force to resist arrest can be used. > Fortunately Lee is just an idiot and his words bear no relation to > reality. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > sure. I don't cry over spilt milk. Getting arrested is really no big > deal, certainly not worth killing a cop. > > Hey, nitespark and any other real cops out there, ever arrested > > someone who really didn't do it? Lee says they were within their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > commit. Had plenty of them found "not guilty", but that only means I > couldn't prove the crime in court. If you couldn't prove the crime in court, there's insufficient evidence that they committed the crime. Hence, you arrested them based on insufficient evidence, just like the Florida cop arrested the reporter on insufficient evidence that a true trespass occurred. Sorry, Andy, but it's the same exact situation. What if you arrested someone for DUI based on a FST, even though the driver protested that he only had one beer. The Breathalyzer confirms this, but only after the arrest. Technically, being below .05, there was no legal basis for the arrest. Should you have been shot and killed? > However, there is caselaw that supports the right to resist an unlawful > arrest up to an including deadly force. Plummer vs State, 136 Ind 306 > and John Bad Elk vs US, 177 US 529. I have not read those opinions and > I am certain the SCOTUS very narrowly defined those conditions in which > any force to resist arrest can be used. John Bad Elk is a case dating from 1899, concerning Indian territory and Indian policemen. From that case: "We do not find any statute of the United States or of the state of South Dakota giving any right to these men to arrest an individual without a warrant, on a charge of misdemeanor not committed in their presence." However, in this case, the reporter was duly charged with an alleged misdemeanor committed in the officer's presence. There is no requirement that a magistrate issue a warrant for arrest in such a case. The procedure of the arrest was lawful even if the circumstances were such that the basis of the arrest was incorrect, exactly like the DUI situation I mention above. It's a pretty slippery slope suggesting that anyone has the right to kill a cop because of a false misdemeanor arrest. >>>Hey, nitespark and any other real cops out there, ever arrested >>>someone who really didn't do it? Lee says they were within their [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > reporter on insufficient evidence that a true trespass occurred. > Sorry, Andy, but it's the same exact situation. Doesn't mean they didn't actually commit the crime only at the time of trial I could not prove it. Big difference. I can say with absolute certainty I have never fabricated a criminal charge against someone who never committed it. > What if you arrested someone for DUI based on a FST, even though the > driver protested that he only had one beer. The Breathalyzer confirms > this, but only after the arrest. Technically, being below .05, there > was no legal basis for the arrest. Should you have been shot and > killed? If I arrested someone based on the FST that is a justifiable arrest based on probable cause. Less than "Reasonable Doubt" but more than "Mere Suspicion". Lots of things can happen in not only a DUI case but other criminal cases as well. Witnesses can move. Evidence can be thrown out on a motion to supress. Laws can change between time of arrest and trial. In your DUI example, should I arrest someone for DUI and the breath test showed less than .05%, I would suspect drugs. In the absence of drugs, I would then suspect some other medical anomaly and request a medical review by a licensed physician be ordered by DMV. >>However, there is caselaw that supports the right to resist an unlawful >>arrest up to an including deadly force. Plummer vs State, 136 Ind 306 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > John Bad Elk is a case dating from 1899, concerning Indian territory > and Indian policemen. I knew it was an old case but was cited in the Plummer v State decision. > From that case: "We do not find any statute of the United States or of > the state of South Dakota giving any right to these men to arrest an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > circumstances were such that the basis of the arrest was incorrect, > exactly like the DUI situation I mention above. This may vary from state to state. In Virginia a police officer cannot make a warrantless arrest on a misdemeanor that was not committed in his presence with certain exceptions noted. As mentioned in messages subsequent to the original, there will be no criminal prosecution of the reporter. I suspect the civil actions will be flying left and right but thats a different story. > It's a pretty slippery slope suggesting that anyone has the right to > kill a cop because of a false misdemeanor arrest. Now THAT I agree with you on 100%. Notwithstanding SCOTUS decisions, I think someone would be very ill advised to resist arrest on any level be it by physical resistance or deadly force simply because they THINK they are innocent. >> If you couldn't prove the crime in c/ourt, there's insufficient >> evidence that they committed the crime. Statement of faulty logic. The lack of sufficient evidence at the time the case went to court, does not mean that there is insufficient evidence, only that what was presented was not sufficient. Greg's statement is the equivalent of "because Greg does not have enough money in his pocket to buy a new car, there isn't enough money in the world to buy the car." >> Hence, you arrested them based on insufficient evidence, just like the >> Florida cop arrested the >> reporter on insufficient evidence that a true trespass occurred. >> Sorry, Andy, but it's the same exact situation. Sorry Greg, but he arrested the guy for something that is not a crime. It's not even close to being the same thing. >> However, in this case, the reporter was duly charged with an alleged >> misdemeanor committed in the officer's presence. A misdemeanor that never happened. Let's keep that point straight. The reporter was found not guilty because he was never on the school's property. The officer lied and the film proved it.. > A misdemeanor that never happened. Let's keep that point straight. The > reporter was found not guilty because he was never on the school's property. > The officer lied and the film proved it.. Shall we go into the number of people recently freed from convictions for eveything from rape to murder to child molestation by DNA? Some prosecutor (lawyer) knowingly, wrongfully, convicted many of these people just to get another rock in their box. Unfortunately, they enjoy "prosecutorial immunity". In article <e47deafa-7f0e-4903-944d-651d7d67d3d6 @s6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, mossman@qnet.com says... -On Nov 17, 4:16 am, nitespark <nitesp...@cox.net> wrote: - -> > Hey, nitespark and any other real cops out there, ever arrested -> > someone who really didn't do it? Lee says they were within their -> > rights to shoot you. You're lucky you're still alive. -> -> Actually I can't say I ever arrested someone for a crime they did not -> commit. Had plenty of them found "not guilty", but that only means I -> couldn't prove the crime in court. - -If you couldn't prove the crime in court, there's insufficient -evidence that they committed the crime. Hence, you arrested them -based on insufficient evidence, just like the Florida cop arrested the -reporter on insufficient evidence that a true trespass occurred. -Sorry, Andy, but it's the same exact situation. well, not really. as a lawyer, you certainly should know better. there could be, and has been, evidence which proved the crime, but was tecnically inadmissable. perp was guilty, but it could not be proven. - -What if you arrested someone for DUI based on a FST, even though the -driver protested that he only had one beer. The Breathalyzer confirms -this, but only after the arrest. Technically, being below .05, there -was no legal basis for the arrest. Should you have been shot and -killed? - -> However, there is caselaw that supports the right to resist an unlawful -> arrest up to an including deadly force. Plummer vs State, 136 Ind 306 -> and John Bad Elk vs US, 177 US 529. I have not read those opinions and -> I am certain the SCOTUS very narrowly defined those conditions in which -> any force to resist arrest can be used. - -John Bad Elk is a case dating from 1899, concerning Indian territory -and Indian policemen. - -From that case: "We do not find any statute of the United States or of -the state of South Dakota giving any right to these men to arrest an -individual without a warrant, on a charge of misdemeanor not committed -in their presence." - -However, in this case, the reporter was duly charged with an alleged -misdemeanor committed in the officer's presence. There is no -requirement that a magistrate issue a warrant for arrest in such a -case. The procedure of the arrest was lawful even if the -circumstances were such that the basis of the arrest was incorrect, -exactly like the DUI situation I mention above. - -It's a pretty slippery slope suggesting that anyone has the right to -kill a cop because of a false misdemeanor arrest. - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net >> > Hey, nitespark and any other real cops out there, ever arrested >> > someone who really didn't do it? Lee says they were within their [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > It's a pretty slippery slope suggesting that anyone has the right to > kill a cop because of a false misdemeanor arrest. Nobody said that. Signature"If you guys would just settle to earth and admit that guns are just noisy potentially dangerous tools and quit waving them around like a steel dick then there's be no need for discussions like this." - JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 > > It's a pretty slippery slope suggesting that anyone has the right to > > kill a cop because of a false misdemeanor arrest. > > Nobody said that. Mossman did, like always trying to put his hoplophobic bullshit and lies on someone (Lee this time), with Francis nipping right along side like the good little socialist coward he is, taking the cheapest of shots as they get handed to him. Must really bum them out to know the reporter walked, kept his gun and permit, and the cop probably got a letter in his jacket. On Nov 17, 10:34 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > Nobody said that. You're calling Lee a nobody? > On Nov 17, 10:34 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > >> Nobody said that. > > You're calling Lee a nobody? That's not what I said, Signature"If you guys would just settle to earth and admit that guns are just noisy potentially dangerous tools and quit waving them around like a steel dick then there's be no need for discussions like this." - JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 01:47:18 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >> On Nov 17, 10:34 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" >> <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That's not what I said, Are you saying that it's the obvious intent and not the exact word constructions that frame the meaning of a comment? JF > On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 01:47:18 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Are you saying <axe> What I said was perfectly clear. Even on your planet. On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 10:56:16 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 01:47:18 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" >> <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Even on your planet. Even on my planet you were caught in a contradiction. Suck it up. Surely you understand that sometimes yer need to put folks down overwhelms your common sense. But you live for this squabbling, don't you? 8) JF > On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 10:56:16 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Even on my planet you were caught in a contradiction. No, I wasn't. I was right then. I'm right now. I'm right, with evidence, whenever I slap you down. It's easy, and just takes a second. I'll spell it out for you. Lee did not say what Greg insinuates he said. No matter how Greg tries to spin or change it. It's obvious that you're so stupid, you can't understand that. It's what you've demonstrated many, many times, and what everyone has come to expect from you. If you were -any- kind of a man, instead of a spineless, belly crawling piece of sh.t slug, you would quickly and easily cite your accusation. Show what Lee said. Show what Greg said. Point out what you describe as my "contradiction". But you won't. Because you can't. You'll just bluster with -zero- substance, like your last post, and slither away gutlessly like you did twice last week. You're scum. >Suck it up. > Surely you understand that sometimes yer need to put folks down > overwhelms your common sense. > > But you live for this squabbling, don't you? 8) The usual factless, unsupported hot air. > JF Signature"If you guys would just settle to earth and admit that guns are just noisy potentially dangerous tools and quit waving them around like a steel dick then there's be no need for discussions like this." - JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 13:27:52 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > You'll just bluster with -zero- substance, like your last post, and >slither away gutlessly like you did twice last week. > > You're scum. Perhaps it's the lack of substance in your bitchy whining that makes me wander off? Watch. I'm gonna do it again. JF > On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 13:27:52 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Perhaps it's the lack of substance in your bitchy whining that makes > me wander off? There was -plenty- of substance- regardless of your usual excessive snipping. The rest of us will review, while you crawl. You said this: "Even on my planet you were caught in a contradiction." I said this (substantively): "No, I wasn't. I was right then. I'm right now. I'm right, with evidence, whenever I slap you down. It's easy, and just takes a second. I'll spell it out for you. Lee did not say what Greg insinuates he said. No matter how Greg tries to spin or change it. It's obvious that you're so stupid, you can't understand that. It's what you've demonstrated many, many times, and what everyone has come to expect from you. If you were -any- kind of a man, instead of a spineless, belly crawling piece of sh.t slug, you would quickly and easily cite your accusation. Show what Lee said. Show what Greg said. Point out what you describe as my "contradiction". But you won't. Because you can't. You'll just bluster with -zero- substance, like your last post, and slither away gutlessly like you did twice last week. You're scum." And then, with the choice of providing a cite, or -slithering-, because you're my leashed little leg humping, ankle biting -bitch-, you did -exactly- as you were -told-. Blustered, and crawled. > Watch. I'm gonna do it again. Sorry. It's just not news. > JF Signature"If you guys would just settle to earth and admit that guns are just noisy potentially dangerous tools and quit waving them around like a steel dick then there's be no need for discussions like this." - JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Nov 18, 10:27 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > Lee did not say what Greg insinuates he said. Again, this is what Lee said: On Oct 24, 3:13 am, "Lee Bell" <pleeb...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > - It is also unclear whether or not Florida's Castle Law applies. If the > reporter was legally there, whether by right of public access or right of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > uncle, it is quite possible that he would have been within his rights to > defend himself with deadly force. 1) "If the reporter was legally there" - let's assume he was, since the DA didn't press charges 2) "It is quite possible that he would have been within his rights to defend himself with deadly force" Now let's add context. The reporter was only arrested for a misdemeanor. "It is quite possible that he would have been within his rights to defend himself with deadly force." That sure sounds like Lee is saying it would have been within the reporter's rights to defend himself with deadly force from a false misdemeanor arrest. How else do you interpret it? Sure, he adds the words "quite possible" but that's just typical governnmental waffling. The fact that he suggested it it quite possible that the reporter would have been within his rights to defend himself from a misdemeanor arrest by using deadly force is sick. Sick. Sick. Sick. And yes, you are wrong. > No matter how Greg tries to spin or change it. See above. It's pretty basic "spin" even if you must "spin" my analysis by calling it spin. > Show what Lee said. Check. > Show what Greg said. Check. > Point out what you describe as my "contradiction". The fact that you said Lee didn't say what Lee said. Or that you said Nobody said it. Therefore, Lee is Nobody according to you. Again: On Oct 24, 3:13 am, "Lee Bell" <pleeb...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > - It is also unclear whether or not Florida's Castle Law applies. If the > reporter was legally there, whether by right of public access or right of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > uncle, it is quite possible that he would have been within his rights to > defend himself with deadly force. 1) "If the reporter was legally there" - let's assume he was, since the DA didn't press charges 2) "It is quite possible that he would have been within his rights to defend himself with deadly force" Now let's add context. The reporter was only arrested for a misdemeanor. "It is quite possible that he would have been within his rights to defend himself with deadly force." That sure sounds like Lee is saying it would have been within the reporter's rights to defend himself with deadly force from a false misdemeanor arrest. How else do you interpret it? Sure, he adds the words "quite possible" but that's just typical governnmental waffling. The fact that he suggested it it quite possible that the reporter would have been within his rights to defend himself from a misdemeanor arrest by using deadly force is sick. Sick. Sick. Sick. And yes, you are wrong. > No matter how Greg tries to spin or change it. See above. It's pretty basic "spin" even if you must "spin" my analysis by calling it spin. > Show what Lee said. Check. > Show what Greg said. Check. > Point out what you describe as my "contradiction". The fact that you said Lee didn't say what Lee said. Or that you said Nobody said it. Therefore, Lee is Nobody according to you. Will another repetition help? > On Nov 18, 10:27 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > reporter's rights to defend himself with deadly force from a false > misdemeanor arrest. It's not what Lee said. He said " illegal demand.... by armed people etc. > How else do you interpret it? Like Lee includes this specific illegal demand by someone who appears to be a cop, and is armed, in a more generalized set of cases where someone has the right to defend himself against illegal demands backed up with a threat of deadly force. Mathias >> On Nov 18, 10:27 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" >> <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Mathias Damn, Greg. Mathias gets it, and english isn't his first language.... Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 >>> On Nov 18, 10:27 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" >>> <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Damn, Greg. Mathias gets it, and english isn't his first language.... Greg seems to stick too much to spanish.. Matthias SignatureVK exquis. mod. Gesch.haus in ruh. Wohnl.3 WE, ehem. Praxis, ca. 350/1000 qm WF/Grdst. 19km nördl. Braunschweig , hochw. einger; Nah VW, Hafen; frei, 0160-4433698 o. 0911-7809081. Gut für Arzt/RA/Ing.büro, oder ruhiges Wohnen, Bilder vorh. Not surprisingly, I found another crazy that thinks that there are times when using deadly force against authorities is appropriate. I'm sure Greg thinks he's a sociopath too. "At a time when our lordly Masters in Great Britain will be satisfied with nothing less than the deprecation of American freedom...[it is necessary to] maintain the liberty which we have derived from our ancestors. That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment to use arms in defense of so valuable a blessing...is clearly my opinion.'' ~George Washington In the late 1760s. > Not surprisingly, I found another crazy that thinks that there are times > when using deadly force against authorities is appropriate. I'm sure Greg [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > blessing...is clearly my opinion.'' > ~George Washington In the late 1760s. Now you're comparing yourself to George Washington? Talk about delusions of grandeur. There's a slight difference between the American Revolution, rebels rising up against British monarchs, versus defending oneself against a misdeameanor arrest by a legitimate sworn peace officer. That you can't perceive the difference shows exactly how warped your mind is. Downright psychotic. > There's a slight difference between the American Revolution, rebels > rising up against British monarchs, versus defending oneself against a > misdeameanor arrest by a legitimate sworn peace officer. That you > can't perceive the difference shows exactly how warped your mind is. > Downright psychotic. You're just afraid that if people finally realize that they can stand up to an illegal arrest the next step would be to eliminate the lawyers that got us into this mess that we're in with too many bullshit laws... As a lawyer, you have a somewhat vested interest in that not happening... In article <cebc55cb-0db9-46c5-8cb8- 722702ffa3ff@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, mossman@qnet.com says... -On Nov 19, 6:14 am, "Lee Bell" <pleeb...@bellsouth.net> wrote: -> Not surprisingly, I found another crazy that thinks that there are times -> when using deadly force against authorities is appropriate. I'm sure Greg -> thinks he's a sociopath too. -> -> "At a time when our lordly Masters in Great Britain will be satisfied with -> nothing less than the deprecation of American freedom...[it is necessary to] -> maintain the liberty which we have derived from our ancestors. That no man -> should scruple, or hesitate a moment to use arms in defense of so valuable a -> blessing...is clearly my opinion.'' -> ~George Washington In the late 1760s. - -Now you're comparing yourself to George Washington? Talk about -delusions of grandeur. what an a.shole conclusion! - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net >>Not surprisingly, I found another crazy that thinks that there are times >>when using deadly force against authorities is appropriate. I'm sure Greg [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > There's a slight difference between the American Revolution, rebels > rising up against British monarchs, Only one of perception. The British, in their minds, had the law on their side as well.... versus defending oneself against a > misdeameanor arrest by a legitimate sworn peace officer. That you > can't perceive the difference shows exactly how warped your mind is. THe revolutionaries would have been hanged, had things gone the other way. They were traitors to the crown. The fact that they won makes them right, in the eyes of history. > Downright psychotic. Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 >> Not surprisingly, I found another crazy that thinks that there are times >> when using deadly force against authorities is appropriate. I'm sure Greg [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Now you're comparing yourself to George Washington? Talk about > delusions of grandeur. Why not? We frequently compare your type to other past leaders- Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin. > There's a slight difference between the American Revolution, rebels > rising up against British monarchs, versus defending oneself against a > misdeameanor arrest by a legitimate sworn peace officer. That you > can't perceive the difference shows exactly how warped your mind is. > Downright psychotic. Signature"If you guys would just settle to earth and admit that guns are just noisy potentially dangerous tools and quit waving them around like a steel dick then there's be no need for discussions like this." - JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Nov 20, 9:34 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > Now you're comparing yourself to George Washington? Talk about > > delusions of grandeur. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > We frequently compare your type to other past leaders- Hitler, Mussolini, > Pol Pot, Stalin. Sure, if you can't win an argument on the merits, compare the other side to Hitler. Isn't there a Law about that somewhere? |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message