Patriots protesting in Cali
- Thread starter AC_Exotic
- Start date
There isn’t.
Nearly every scientific data point goes against the heavy handed tactics of Governors like Newson and Whitmer.
* couple of published studies show there is zero correlation between and government mandated shutdown and success slowing the virus
* There were 8 Republican Governors who either never did or were the last to issue stay-at-home orders. 6 of this 8 states are in the lowest 10 states of deaths per capita. And all 8 are in the lowest half.
* Virus harms older disproportionally: There is no reason to keep healthy and young locked up. UK study released this weekend shows that 93% of deaths are 60+.
That's the synopsis, said with appreciated brevity.
Yeah, no park for the kids, but by all means send them to daycare.
Wasn't aware of that one... no I am talking about the Trumpets carrying signs from Aushchwitz...
Thanks for the additional info though. "Very fine people" - or so says Donald John Trump.
Hey david, is this ok? Asking for a friend...
What is truly scary and sobering, is the analogy is spot on, real time accurate.Hey david, is this ok? Asking for a friend...
I don't like it.
My first instinct is to lock and load...
the AR15.
Really, I want to Cactus Jack some mofos.
But, I digress.
“Yeah, but buh but I found a picture of some trailer trash holding a sign!!!!!”
Esquires Hwood and @CowboyJD
As I’ve acknowledged, I’m no lawyer. Just a simple merchant.
Would either of you be kind enough to tell me where I’m in error here in suggesting TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 - supports my argument against the unconstitutionality of the behavior of elected officials and law enforcement officers?
https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
SUMMARY:
- Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Mega,
Constitution (Supreme Court Interpretations thereof) > Statute.
Again, you are completely ignoring the 10th Amendment, which gives the states "Police Powers" under the principle of "dual sovereignty." The Constitution confers the power to create and enforce Quarantine rules to the States and Federal Govt and NO STATUTE can overcome that. All STATUTES are inferior to the Constitution. So you can quite wasting your time looking at Federal Statutes and continuing to ignore the Supreme Court's ruling in - Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (1902)
I have pointed you to this decision at least 3 times now as it is the CONTROLLING legal authority on this topic.
This is NOT an issue where the "Color of Authority" comes into play, as the police have ACTUAL and LAWFUL authority to enforce state orders involving quarantines under the 10th Amendment. Color of authority situations arise when there is no ACTUAL or LAWFUL authority to enforce. Say, for example when the police attempt to arrest and charge a person for taking photos/video of police officers in a public place. In that scenario, the individuals rights to do so outweighs any claims by the police and any attempt to do so would be completely under "the color of authority" with no actual or lawful authority to do so in existence.
Constitution (Supreme Court Interpretations thereof) > Statute.
Again, you are completely ignoring the 10th Amendment, which gives the states "Police Powers" under the principle of "dual sovereignty." The Constitution confers the power to create and enforce Quarantine rules to the States and Federal Govt and NO STATUTE can overcome that. All STATUTES are inferior to the Constitution. So you can quite wasting your time looking at Federal Statutes and continuing to ignore the Supreme Court's ruling in - Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (1902)
I have pointed you to this decision at least 3 times now as it is the CONTROLLING legal authority on this topic.
This is NOT an issue where the "Color of Authority" comes into play, as the police have ACTUAL and LAWFUL authority to enforce state orders involving quarantines under the 10th Amendment. Color of authority situations arise when there is no ACTUAL or LAWFUL authority to enforce. Say, for example when the police attempt to arrest and charge a person for taking photos/video of police officers in a public place. In that scenario, the individuals rights to do so outweighs any claims by the police and any attempt to do so would be completely under "the color of authority" with no actual or lawful authority to do so in existence.
Last edited:
I avoid any and all Hitler media - memes included - so not my thing. Some shit just aint funny.Hey david, is this ok? Asking for a friend...
I agree. Actual authoritarianism is not funny. Sometime though, a well designed meme draws attention, albeit uncomfortably, to that.
Totally agree. Perhaps someone should let the Auschwitz Memorial know they can calm down on the “spreading hate” hyperbole.
Nah, their job is to make people feel queasy who venture out on that limb. They do a reasonable job of it.
I really appreciate your insight here. Really do. Again though, I’m a layperson and while you seem insistent this is settled law, there seem to be a lot of legal experts who aren’t so sure. My gut tells me this is not the intention of our Constitution. It really seems antithetical to the entire concept, to be honest.
But again I appreciate your insight. You may be right but if so, it’s incredibly disappointing to learn that in fact we aren’t free at all and are instead at the whim of our police state overlords.
I just wonder if at this point, that’s such a purely altruistic endeavor. I just say that because I don’t know who is using the Auschwitz brand to post on social media these days. Do you know? I would love to feel good about their intentions not having political foundations.
Hey @hollywood @CowboyJD @cableok
do me a favor guys and check out what this officer has to say. Perhaps he said it more eloquently than I did, but this brought a tear to my eye. Powerful. I hope there are way more like this man and fewer like the jackbooted thug that dragged that NC tattoo artist from his business.
Go on. Watch it.
do me a favor guys and check out what this officer has to say. Perhaps he said it more eloquently than I did, but this brought a tear to my eye. Powerful. I hope there are way more like this man and fewer like the jackbooted thug that dragged that NC tattoo artist from his business.
Go on. Watch it.
Seriously.... this is the civil rights issue you dipshit leftists have been begging for and you are ignoring it.
It’s lame and kind of hilarious but it’s what we’ve got.
It’s lame and kind of hilarious but it’s what we’ve got.
You are starting this entire conversation and discussion with the assumption that all these laws are clearly unconstitutional. Therefore, anyone that enforces them are jackbooted thugs dishonoring their oath to uphold the Constitution and anyone that refuses to do so is a hero. Anyone that agrees with you re: constitutionality is upholding their oath. Anyone that disagrees with you re: constitutionality is a jackbooted thug.
That's just not the case. It would be a case by case issue/decision, but the majority of these quarantine laws are very likely completely constitutional. A law enforcement officer that thinks they are bad policy and disagrees with them, but recognizes that they are likely constitutional is actually upholding his oath to the Constitution by honoring and enforcing constitutional laws duly enacted even when he disagrees with them as a matter of policy.
Now on to the video.
Not a lot of context is given with regards to who he is or what his position is.
He looks and talks like a Sheriff....which is an elected position....and that looks like some kind of county commission meeting where they are discussing possible resolutions.
Comparing that to the rank and file guy on the street that has been ordered by superiors to arrest an individual for violation of quarantine laws, who is risking insubordination charges, dismissal, a career probably ruined, by declaring on his own authority that the quarantine laws are unconstitutional and thereby refusing to enforce a law that is likely constitutional, that hasn't even been challenged in court (as the constitution provides for), and that very well may end up being upheld when and if it is....is really an unfair comparison.
I'll give you an example from personal experience. It's the death penalty. I believe the death penalty is bad public policy. For many reasons. Furthermore, I have personal doubts about it's constitutionality. Hell, the SCOTUS has said it's constitutional, then said it was unconstitutional, then went back to saying it's constitutional. If I'm on a potential death penalty case (and I have one right now...waiting to see if DA is going to go that way and file a Bill of Particulars), I'm going to discuss public policy implications and discuss the constitutionality issue. In the end though, I'm not gonna replace the court decisions finding it constitutional with my own interpretation and refuse to enforce the law if the DA decides the death penalty should be on the table. If that makes me a jack booted thug that is violating my vow to support and defend the constitution in anyone's book, then so be it. I know I'm not.
Last edited:
Every ten years I agree with something from JD. This isn't it, but I'm hopeful something will come up.
I keed. So true. It's constantly irritating when propagandists praise politicians as courageous for advancing the will of the majority/wealthy/activists/politically expedient.
Mega - You and I are on the same side about a government mandated lockdown. Grandstanding do-nothings like Mayor Bynum of Tulsa will never get my vote again.
My difference from you is my view on the police. The police should enforce laws. That is how our system works. The video you posted is great. It is probably a police chief telling his superiors that he is informing his officers that they will not be enforcing orders. That is perfect to me. The officers are receiving specific orders from the police chief not to enforce. They don’t have to interpret, they enforce.
That is very different than your first video of an officer escorting the tattoo parlor owner out of a house. Presumably, the officer was following a direct order. Which he should do. Now he should do it respectfully and be understanding, but I support him following the law.
I am 100% against mandated government shutdowns. I am 100% against the power grab like the Mich Gov. But I fully back the blue.
I still contend your ire is misguided and I think incorrectly placed. Let’s say a police officer doesn’t want to arrest illegal immigrants because he feels that is wrong. Would you support him letting an illegal immigrant go? Or a police officer that thinks stealing is okay because the person was poor? Or a police officer that won’t evict a squatter because the squatter can’t afford rent?
Last edited:
OK, but isn't there a real or implied mandate to execute the least restrictive possible action as regards to abridging a citizen's rights in times of quarantine and whatnot?
As in, could a better solution than dragging the man out in chains have been found? Like say... close him down and tell him to go home?
To this guy's credit, I heard an interview with him on Bongino's show today and he does not blame the cops himself. He says many are friends and clients and that they had to go down a line of guys who refused to arrest him until they found the one little prick who did. (emphasis mine)
That tells me that LEO knows this is a bad look, but there's always one little punk willing to carry out an order.
Police are already breaking the law by not arresting illegal immigrants, so it appears they are already choosing which laws to enforce or not
Or being told which laws to enforce and which to not enforce.
Or they are state police tasked with enforcing state laws and state laws don't cover illegal immigrants.
Are you not getting enough attention today Karen?
militarized police departments have always been bad. This isn’t a new opinion around here.
Might....maybe...want to do a little more research into the claims.
Six people arrested were arrested for carrying firearms onto a bar property....which has been and continues to be illegal before coronavirus. One arrested for violating the Governor’s order. One arrested for interfering with legal duties of a peace officer.
Check out Pihilip Archibald and Open Texas. Out “liberating” businesses with ARs and whatnot. My bet is that he is charging these folks.
Governor Abbott is one of the Governor’s opening his/her state rather quickly.
This meathead is looking for armed confrontation, and he got it. I’m just glad no one decided to pop off a few rounds. Could have been very ugly.
This is the town where I was born. August 31 of last year....mass shooting. 8 dead including shooter. 18 others injured. I can imagine reports of armed gunmen “liberating” a bar would lead to pretty heightened tension.
I’m long.....LONG.....on the record as anti-militarization of law enforcement.
Probably even before you.
I seem to recall an opinion that the law enforcement response to the Ferguson unrest of 2017 was a tad bit over militarized and maybe a part of the problem rather than a solution....wasn’t exactly roundly agreed upon and supported around here and elsewhere.
I could be wrong, and I’m not necessarily saying you were involved, but that’s how I remember it and maybe that is what @07pilt is referring to.
