To Protect and to Serve II

#1,277
#1,277
Grand Vol said:
This specific instance of political corruption and a knee jerk reaction to world events? Especially in light of the ignorance showed by the idiots in charge in Colorado?

Yeah, pretty sad state of affairs. However, the fact the people responded by recalling those State Senators, the corruption of Hickenlooper with Bloomberg tossing in massive amounts of money to his campaign being put out there as well as the local LEOs stating their opposition does give a little bit of sunshine to the situation.
Click to expand...

You honestly believe replacing one group of thieves with another will fix things? Let me explain something, only the morally bankrupt seek so called high office. Usually it's the lowest of the low.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,278
#1,278
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
You honestly believe replacing one group of thieves with another will fix things? Let me explain something, only the morally bankrupt seek so called high office. Usually it's the lowest of the low.
Click to expand...

You ignore the fact the people recalled the Senators in this case? That has nothing to do with the morally bankrupt, but rather with the people using the system to their advantage and seeing through the corruption that had been put in place.

Whether their replacements were any better is a different subject for a different thread. But the people did respond to those they felt weren't meeting their needs. And it should be a lesson to everyone about the power of the republic system. If more people would get pissed and get corrupt career politicians out of office, or rather not elect them in the first place, things might be different in this nation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,279
#1,279
Grand Vol said:
You ignore the fact the people recalled the Senators in this case? That has nothing to do with the morally bankrupt, but rather with the people using the system to their advantage and seeing through the corruption that had been put in place.

Whether their replacements were any better is a different subject for a different thread. But the people did respond to those they felt weren't meeting their needs. And it should be a lesson to everyone about the power of the republic system. If more people would get pissed and get corrupt career politicians out of office, or rather not elect them in the first place, things might be different in this nation.
Click to expand...

Rubbish.

I'll offer further observation in a bit. Driving.
 
#1,281
#1,281
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Not really. Let me put it another way, have you ever personally enforced a law that you thought was unjust?
Click to expand...

I've arrested people that I didn't want to arrest before, but not because I disagreed with the law. They either had active warrants or repeatedly disregarded my warnings to go inside and chill out.

Wanna know the crazy thing though--each incident I'm referring to, the person I arrested was cool with me afterwards. They either took responsibility for it, apologized for being a jerk, or both.

I'm a pretty cool customer man. Ya know, for doing such an "immoral profession" and all...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,282
#1,282
Rasputin_Vol said:
And you are OK with that?
Click to expand...

I am ok with it in terms of the inside of the car cabin. Because that area is usually exposed to any passerby who peers through the window, which is not illegal to do.

As for the glove compartment/trunk/etc, I think the law should be changed to place those specific areas within a reasonable expectation of privacy.
 
#1,284
#1,284
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
There's a question, how come someone is charged with a non violent crime and suddenly they lose their right to protect their lives with firearms?
Click to expand...

You give up a whole lot more than firearms if you're convicted of a felony, firearms should be the least of your worries.

As for that...too bad, so sad, hate it for ya.
 
#1,286
#1,286
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
There's a question, how come someone is charged with a non violent crime and suddenly they lose their right to protect their lives with firearms?
Click to expand...

Shhhhhhh.. I 've asked this question before and also asked if there were any other laws that restricted the ability of a citizen to be protected by any other Bill of Rights once they have served their time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,287
#1,287
orangeblood79 said:
Considering the danger involved every time I walk up beside a car on a traffic stop...yeah. I'm good with it.

Like I said, there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle.
Click to expand...

My solution to that would be to limit or eliminate the need and number of times you make traffic stops.
 
#1,288
#1,288
Rasputin_Vol said:
Yes, a felon. Answer the question... you had damn well better think about your answer carefully, however.
Click to expand...

Ooooh...

Does this person have active warrants or are we talking about a felon who has served his time, off probation/parole, etc?
 
#1,289
#1,289
orangeblood79 said:
You give up a whole lot more than firearms if you're convicted of a felony, firearms should be the least of your worries.

As for that...too bad, so sad, hate it for ya.
Click to expand...

Now see, I'll disagree with you here. I don't think any right needs to be completely voided on the basis of the verbiage of a crime. Take embezzlement for example, while illegal and a felony, it's not exactly what anyone would consider "violent" at all. Yet someone loses their ability to vote or own firearms as a result of same?

For violent felony crimes: rape, murder, arson, etc, sure I agree the laws should take a narrow view of immediate restoration of rights. But if someone makes a mistake some years (insert arbitrary number there) prior, is properly rehabilitated and proves themselves to be a productive member of society, I see no reason they shouldn't be allowed to appeal for a restoration of their rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,290
#1,290
RobsPics said:
I am ok with it in terms of the inside of the car cabin. Because that area is usually exposed to any passerby who peers through the window, which is not illegal to do.

As for the glove compartment/trunk/etc, I think the law should be changed to place those specific areas within a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Click to expand...

What if I have Christmas gifts or other valuables items in my vehicle that I don't want people like you to know about? Shouldn't I have a right to privacy in my vehicle when it comes to protecting my property?
 
#1,291
#1,291
Rasputin_Vol said:
My solution to that would be to limit or eliminate the need and number of times you make traffic stops.
Click to expand...

I can assure you, the gap between the number of times a traffic stop "can" be made, versus the number of times a traffic stop actually occurs, is wide enough to fit the state of Tennessee.
 
#1,292
#1,292
orangeblood79 said:
You give up a whole lot more than firearms if you're convicted of a felony, firearms should be the least of your worries.

As for that...too bad, so sad, hate it for ya.
Click to expand...

For a non-violent crime, you have no problem with people losing their rights?

I can't remember, did you say you were one of the good cops or bad cops?
 
#1,294
#1,294
Rasputin_Vol said:
What if I have Christmas gifts or other valuables items in my vehicle that I don't want people like you to know about? Shouldn't I have a right to privacy in my vehicle when it comes to protecting my property?
Click to expand...

If that is the case, you should put those gifts in the trunk. That's why I said the law should be changed to extend a reasonable expectation of privacy to the trunk area.

If you leave the gifts in plain view of anyone who walks by your car, then objectively speaking, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
 
#1,296
#1,296
Grand Vol said:
Now see, I'll disagree with you here. I don't think any right needs to be completely voided on the basis of the verbiage of a crime. Take embezzlement for example, while illegal and a felony, it's not exactly what anyone would consider "violent" at all. Yet someone loses their ability to vote or own firearms as a result of same?

For violent felony crimes: rape, murder, arson, etc, sure I agree the laws should take a narrow view of immediate restoration of rights. But if someone makes a mistake some years (insert arbitrary number there) prior, is properly rehabilitated and proves themselves to be a productive member of society, I see no reason they shouldn't be allowed to appeal for a restoration of their rights.
Click to expand...

What about reefer or coke in the trunk of the car? Non-violent...

Also funny that your first instinct is to use an example that protects the white collar/bankster elite felons that hardly ever get arrested anyways...
 
#1,297
#1,297
orangeblood79 said:
I can assure you, the gap between the number of times a traffic stop "can" be made, versus the number of times a traffic stop actually occurs, is wide enough to fit the state of Tennessee.
Click to expand...

I passed a highway patrolman the other day. He was doing 65 MPH in the 70 zone and I was doing about 71 MPH when I noticed the vehicle.

Also got clocked by one doing 55 MPH in a 50 zone.

Passed another with a headlight out some time back.

Somehow, I'm still alive.
 
#1,300
#1,300
Rasputin_Vol said:
What about reefer or coke in the trunk of the car? Non-violent...

Also funny that your first instinct is to use an example that protects the white collar/bankster elite felons that hardly ever get arrested anyways...
Click to expand...

Actually, it's funny that out of the entire post you decide to pull that one specific item out and build your strawman argument.

As for reefer in the truck, how do they know it's there? And furthermore, how much are we talking here?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top