# Great Video



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Just found this video, got it off Survivalblog.com. Well worth the 7+minutes to watch. Jessie the Outlaw - Message to Police.

YouTube


----------



## Montana Rancher (Mar 4, 2013)

Meangreen
Go to bed and sleep it off. Nobody appreciates brute force over instructive reasoning, oooo except for the cops at your door, sorry my bad.

I found the message both inspirational and instructive.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Must have hit a nerve. My bad....


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

Didn't you watch the video?


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Has anybody done a "study" to find out how many cops have gotten themselves transferred, left the force or taken a lower position to avoid having to be involved in the situation described in the video? We ABSOLUTELY cannot have individual officers deciding which laws they are going to enforce and which ones they are not!!!!

As a Conservative, I like law and order. I want consistent, predictable and understandable rules that I have to follow to get through my life successfully. Hell, that is my biggest complaint about Obama is that he neither consistent nor predictable! What I absolutely DO NOT want is individual officers or individual politicians deciding which laws are good and which laws are bad and choosing not to enforce the bad laws. National heath care anybody?

The officers that refuse to uphold unconstitutional laws and walk away are heros. There is no question about that. But ultimately we cannot blame the officers that uphold even the unconstitutional laws for doing what we pay them to do. The only people we can blame for unconstitutional laws are the voters that allowed this to happen. If you do not like what the cops are doing, then elect politicians that will retask them to do what you do want.

Sorry, but this is a topic that gets under my skin.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Sounds like some here think the Founding Fathers may have gotten it wrong, they should have voted more, all hail the King.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

ekim said:


> Sounds like some here think the Founding Fathers may have gotten it wrong, they should have voted more, all hail the King.


Please elaborate. I do not understand your point.


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

What people don't know or don't care to know is that federal agencies are given illegal orders that we refuse to follow. Obama's executive orders are perfect examples, the order is given, we refuse to follow them, the legal department drafts a rebuttal based on the unconstitutionality of the order, and it null and void.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

If each LEO follows his own interpretation of law, you end up with a completely subjective system - in other words Chicago. That is unacceptable. For a simple example, consider speed limits. I drive I-35 through Iowa on a fairly regular basis. It is flat and straight and there is no reason for a 65 MPH speed limit. But that is what it is. Do I follow that law? Of course not. I regularly drive it at between at between 80 and 85. But when I get pulled over, I also do not blame the cop. 65 is the law. I knowingly am breaking the law. Okay, accept the ticket and kick 'er down to 90 to make up the lost time for getting puled over.

My point is we need consistency with law enforcement. The video seemed to me to imply that officers selectively applying the laws they believed in, was the best way to go. And to that I say absolutely NOT!!!!

But she did have a great chest.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Inor said:


> Please elaborate. I do not understand your point.


As per your post, you don't want cops that can tell right from wrong, they should follow orders and carry out the law regardless, that's what they are paid to do. If the Founding Fathers didn't like their politicians they should have just voted them out of office, not fight back, right. We didn't vote them out of office so we pay the price and hope for the best, is that what your saying?

The video didn't say all cops, but you don't hear a lot of cops speaking out against these laws that trample the constitution, but there are some and they usually get shut down fast. Guess I'm in the minority on this post, so be it, I still agree with what she said. There may come a time when all will have to choose where they stand. If that doesn't get the point across then we will agree to dis agree on the video.


----------



## Titan6 (May 19, 2013)

Interesting Video don't think she was saying anything more then police officers need to look inside themselves and make sure they a police officer for the right reasons and not to follow their bosses orders blindly..There are always going to be excellent,good,average, and bad police officers like any other profession..


----------



## sparkyprep (Jul 5, 2013)

I'm sorry MeanGreen that this subject hit a nerve for you, but I see a lot of truth in this video. Oppression by LEO's is becoming more and more prevalent in this country. The correlation between our LEO's and the Nazi enforcers "just following orders" also rings very true. All human beings, including LEO's, have a moral obligation to distinguish between right and wrong, regardless of what orders they have received. Is it ok for a TSA agent to strip search a 9 year old girl at the airport, just because they are following orders in the name of "security"? No, it is wrong, and in that situation, I would disobey my orders, or quit on the spot.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

ekim said:


> As per your post, you don't want cops that can tell right from wrong, they should follow orders and carry out the law regardless, that's what they are paid to do. If the Founding Fathers didn't like their politicians they should have just voted them out of office, not fight back, right. We didn't vote them out of office so we pay the price and hope for the best, is that what your saying?
> 
> The video didn't say all cops, but you don't hear a lot of cops speaking out against these laws that trample the constitution, but there are some and they usually get shut down fast. Guess I'm in the minority on this post, so be it, I still agree with what she said. There may come a time when all will have to choose where they stand. If that doesn't get the point across then we will agree to dis agree on the video.


If I did not explain myself well enough, I apologize. I did not mean to imply that cops should follow orders blindly. But, they do need to enforce the laws whether they agree with them or not. In the video, the gal uses the marijuana as an example. She seems to think that police should just turn a blind eye when they see somebody using it or possessing it. My point is, regardless of whether you think pot should be legal or not (personally I do not care either way), the police cannot just arbitrarily decide they do not want to enforce the laws against it.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Take a look at this video I think it applies to many aspects of what this thread is all about. It is a catchy song that you'll be singing in your head all day. Corey Smith is a singer songwriter that obviously says the F-Word multiple times in this song so use some headphones or keep the children away. My point is that it addresses the 1st and 4th Amendments in a round a bout way. Let me know what y'all think about it. Not the perfect country and western song like David Allen Coe but still talks about gettin' drunk, jail, etc. Enjoy but think about in regards to your rights.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

My biggest problem is that some want to lump everyone into 1 big pile. Either all are good or all are bad. The truth is somewhere in the middle. People are people.

That being said, selective enforcement has been going in Chicago for many years. That works well for them,right? Wouldn't you just love to live there?????? Me, I think I'll pass.


----------



## GTGallop (Nov 11, 2012)

Cops are people too. They have ambitions, goals, families, hobbies, etc. They put their pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us. There are smart ones, and dumb ones. Moral ones and immoral ones. Good ones and bad ones.

I know a lot of cops and they are all good folk with no tolerance for the crap that brings a community down. They are strong leaders in their community. Having said that, I think we have all heard about that "one guy on the force" that did something stupid like pulling attractive females over for traffic violations just so he could get them to show him their tits and let them go - or some other dumb-shit stunt. These are the 1% of the 1% and they get weeded out pretty quick.

The biggest risk anyone has is some rookie that is shy on experience and knowledge of the law. Example: I know a guy that got pulled over because his third brake light was out. In AZ, your car is required to be manufactured with a 3rd brake light but you are not required to maintain it. If the bulb goes out, oh well - it isn't a traffic violation. Rookie officer also discovered that he was open carrying a pistol so she took the pistol (perfectly within her rights) and then cuffed and mirandized him before stuffing him in a patrol car because he was within 1000 feet of a school where she pulled him over (at 10PM in the summer). The guy protested because he was a CCW licensed citizen (allowed to carry within 1000) and because the 3rdBL was not a moving violation. So he requested a supervisor who showed up and cleared him of all wrong doing and returned his pistol to him (completely disassembled in a baggie - ammo in a separate baggie). The officer thought she was doing her job but she was a rookie and just didn't have the experience needed to do the great job that she really wanted to do in her heart. With a little instruction and a few years experience, she'll probably make an outstanding officer.

So I'm not worried about American Police Officers converting into some sort of Brown Shirt organization that goes around jack-booting civilians in the neck over petty shit. Know your rights and the law. Keep a lawyers number in your cell (vet them first) and if you cant reason your way out of a situation like the guy with the 3rd brake light did, then go along nice and easy until you can call a lawyer to get it straight.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Inor said:


> If I did not explain myself well enough, I apologize. I did not mean to imply that cops should follow orders blindly. But, they do need to enforce the laws whether they agree with them or not. In the video, the gal uses the marijuana as an example. She seems to think that police should just turn a blind eye when they see somebody using it or possessing it. My point is, regardless of whether you think pot should be legal or not (personally I do not care either way), the police cannot just arbitrarily decide they do not want to enforce the laws against it.


As I said we will just agree to dis agree. The personal moral issue can not be ignored, you can only lie to yourself for so long, you can fool some of the people etc. As far as "the police cannot arbitrarily decide they do not want to enforce laws " is pure bull shit, they do it every day, traffic laws, drug deals, prostitution, gambling, illegals etc. it is all at the cops whim at the time and the force they choose to use when they do enforce a law. Do some use better judgement yes, but only a fool would say that fellow cops don't know what other cops do and turn a blind eye, they same as politicians do. Say and believe what you want, but until the people have the same power/authority, we the people are screwed. Ignoring or turning a blind eye is what has gotten us into this situation. Meangreen's response is all the proof you need, he took it personal, knowing full well that what was said in that video is true, maybe not 100% across the board, but it's there and growing and his hands are tied to do much about it. There is a problem and to ignore it is to accept, IMO.


----------



## midtnfamilyguy (Nov 17, 2012)

I started to write a long post about this, but the more I thought about it the more I decided not to write one. An officer has a duty not to enforce a law that is unconstitutional or immoral, but that decision is made by higher authorities that was put in place by laws and the people, not the officer on the street. But then again, these liberals won't understand this. And by the way I have nearly 30 years in law enforcement. Do I agree with ALL the laws on the books? No, but I took an oath to enforce them and to me that oath is important. If you don't like the way the laws are being enforced here, try living in another country and see how you like it then. Enough said


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

midtnfamilyguy said:


> I started to write a long post about this, but the more I thought about it the more I decided not to write one. An officer has a duty not to enforce a law that is unconstitutional or immoral, but that decision is made by higher authorities that was put in place by laws and the people, not the officer on the street. But then again, these liberals won't understand this. And by the way I have nearly 30 years in law enforcement. Do I agree with ALL the laws on the books? No, but I took an oath to enforce them and to me that oath is important. If you don't like the way the laws are being enforced here, try living in another country and see how you like it then. Enough said


I don't want to live in komiefornia, chicago or nyc, I'll stay in America thank you. In America we have a Constitution and it gives the PEOPLE rights and laws or people that violate those rights can and should be held to uphold those rights, that includes LEO's. ENOUGH SAID, if you are allowed to think for yourself by law. Nazi germany enforced their laws too.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

midtnfamilyguy said:


> I started to write a long post about this, but the more I thought about it the more I decided not to write one. An officer has a duty not to enforce a law that is unconstitutional or immoral, but that decision is made by higher authorities that was put in place by laws and the people, not the officer on the street. But then again, these liberals won't understand this. And by the way I have nearly 30 years in law enforcement. Do I agree with ALL the laws on the books? No, but I took an oath to enforce them and to me that oath is important. If you don't like the way the laws are being enforced here, try living in another country and see how you like it then. Enough said


I won't write a book, but would like to give you an alternative point of view. The *United States Supreme Court* opined:

_The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

" The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it._"

-- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

We have lines in the sand because the government is not always right and we've lost the advantage of having a representative government. Our forefathers wrestled with the same issue. An excerpt is in order:

"_When does tyranny become tyranny? Is there a time when it is not only morally correct but the will of God for one to resist legally constituted authority? When does the Lord's "anointed" lose his anointing? When did it become God's will for America to throw off the yoke of Britain? Was it God's will at all?

Of all the questions we faced, this last was the one we dreaded the most. For a strong case could be made against America's ever having come out from under the mother country's authority. If God did intend this land to be a new Israel, then each major step in the implementation of this plan would have to conform to his righteousness. A holy end, no matter how sublime, could never justify unholy means.

The more we debated this, the more mired down we became. So, we prayed to be shown the way out of this mental swamp. And that same morning in Florida, in which we had been unable to discern the true nature of the Puritans call, the Holy Spirit went on to show us why America had to resist - why, for them to do anything less would have been the greatest disobedience. This part of the revelation began with a verse of Scripture coming to Peter's mind, which, when he looked it up was Galatians 5 : 1 and which proved to be the key to all that followed:

*For freedom, Christ has set us free; stand fast, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery*_." (The Light and the Glory by Peter Marshall and David Manuel Page 254 )

Government has a lot of power; but, what they lack is authority. "_The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild_ (sic)a_nd government to gain ground_." - Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, Paris, May 27, 1788

"_The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure_."
― Albert Einstein

That is where I make my stand.


----------



## Fuzzee (Nov 20, 2012)

I'm not going to agree with everything said in the video and I'm not going to disagree either. It doesn't take a genius to see that there are a lot of very bad laws on the books that make little sense and the actions of our leaders aren't in all of our best interests. There are good and bad law enforcement officers and the reality is they do have to choose and follow what they feel is right because they are responsible for their actions in the end and they will be judged at some point in the future. As the officer said who was arrested for wearing the mask in the second video on the 1st page. "There is a war coming". 






.


----------



## midtnfamilyguy (Nov 17, 2012)

Ekim and Resister, I agree with what you wrote. ALL people should be held accountable for their wrongdoings, even LEO's. However, it is not a person's right to resist a law because they don't agree with it. Just because one wants to smoke pot, doesn't make the law illegal or immoral. I'm fairly sure no one here condones drunk driving and taking a chance that a loved one gets maimed or killed because some idiot thinks it is alright in their eyes. I an a strong supporter of individual rights As a professor once said in a class in college, "on the side of the road with an officer armed with a stick and a gun is not the time to argue. That's what the court system is for."


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

midtnfamilyguy said:


> Ekim and Resister, I agree with what you wrote. ALL people should be held accountable for their wrongdoings, even LEO's. However, it is not a person's right to resist a law because they don't agree with it. Just because one wants to smoke pot, doesn't make the law illegal or immoral. I'm fairly sure no one here condones drunk driving and taking a chance that a loved one gets maimed or killed because some idiot thinks it is alright in their eyes. I an a strong supporter of individual rights As a professor once said in a class in college, "on the side of the road with an officer armed with a stick and a gun is not the time to argue. That's what the court system is for."


Maybe at some time before now, but with the way the courts are going and the way lawyers twist shit around I personally have no faith in the court system. As far as what some professor once said I put that at the bottom of the ocean, sort of like lower than whale shit. Any more it seems that if you are on the side of the road with with an armed LEO your life/freedom isn't worth much at that point if he's had a bad day and you aren't willing to kiss some ass. In a court of law your word is as good as the amount of money you can afford to throw at the court.
Do I have a bad attitude toward LEO', courts and the government in general Yes, but I feel it's justified anymore, that's just me though, I could be wrong but I'll take my chances and stay as far from those 3 groups as much as I can. The crap I've seen going on in this country right now over rides any feel good talk most are pushing. From your responses it seems you are straddling the fence and for your sake I hope one of your feet doesn't slip.


----------



## slewfoot (Nov 6, 2013)

The fat girl is clueless. She and her kind are part of what is wrong with this country, They take small insignificant incidents and twist and blow them in to a big bunch of BS, Typical of the Obama huggers. If you honestly believe this crap they spew move to another country.


----------



## sparkyprep (Jul 5, 2013)

slewfoot, your point, and argument were immediately discredited when you chose to start your statement with a petty, personal insult that had absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter. If you truly want someone to take you and your opinion seriously, and give it any credit whatsoever, refrain from second grade schoolyard tactics that sound like "_yea, but you're fat! Na Na Na Boo Boo!"_


----------



## slewfoot (Nov 6, 2013)

sparkyprep said:


> slewfoot, your point, and argument were immediately discredited when you chose to start your statement with a petty, personal insult that had absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter. If you truly want someone to take you and your opinion seriously, and give it any credit whatsoever, refrain from second grade schoolyard tactics that sound like "_yea, but you're fat! Na Na Na Boo Boo!"_


Truth hurts.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

That's 2 posts that provide nothing and show they have no real argument, attack the messenger and not the message. Leftwing liberal type BS.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

I'm not worried about meangreen. If he comes, well I'll just have to shoot back. :lol:

If y'all really want to worry about which jackbooted thugs, you will know them when you see them. They will be dressed in blue.


----------



## sparkyprep (Jul 5, 2013)

I think MeanGreen has a point, and I can see his side of the argument. He has a legitimate point that not all LEO's are bad, and being from that background, I can understand his blanket defense of them. However, the question that the girl in the video asks remains ringing loud and clear. Even if you are a "good cop", at what point do you say, this is wrong, and I won't do it.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

midtnfamilyguy said:


> However, it is not a person's right to resist a law because they don't agree with it.


Resisting a law simply because you don't agree is not sufficient justification. That was not the point I made. The point is, if a law is tyrannical; if that law infringes upon *unalienable* Rights; if that law forces one to choose between doing right and obeying an unjust law, then YES, we *DO* have a Right to resist. Our country was built upon the acknowledgement of that. "_Thomas Aquinas is considered the greatest, most all-encompassing writer on the Natural Law,

If the law purports to require actions that no-one should ever do, it cannot rightly be complied with; one's moral obligation is not to obey but to disobey: And if it purports to authorize such acts (e.g. rape, theft, or infanticide), its authorization is morally void and of no effect; courts should not guide their adjudications by such laws. But law's obligatoriness and authority is subject to further conditions, derived from the very nature and rationale of political authority. If the law-makers (i) are motivated not by concern for the community's common good but by greed or vanity (private motivations that make them tyrants, whatever the content of their legislation), or (ii) act outside the authority granted to them, or (iii) while acting with a view to the common good apportion the necessary burdens unfairly, their laws are unjust and in the forum of reasonable conscience are not so much laws_ "

The American Right to Revolt Against Tyranny: Part A?Ancient Roots

"_Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government_." - an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence

Even the left disagrees with you on this, midtnfamilyguy. Listen to what Martin Luther King, Jr stated:

"_One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws_."

Unfortunately, we've come to a time where voting and relying on judges that don't uphold the Constitution (as originally written and intended) are in charge. A person's right to resist unjust laws by passive resistance and civil disobedience are indisputable. Then, when all nonviolent peaceful and legal avenues of redress have been exhausted a person can retain the right to rebel against tyranny. We are now at those cross-roads where the legal system is useless and the political system is beyond our reach. Most of us are aware of the situation and our options.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

inceptor said:


> I'm not worried about meangreen. If he comes, well I'll just have to shoot back. :lol:
> 
> If y'all really want to worry about which jackbooted thugs, you will know them when you see them. They will be dressed in blue.


I to am not concerned about Meangreen, but I wouldn't be to sure about all of them being dressed in blue or even wearing blue helmets.

Army Officer Wants You Disarmed: ?We Will Pry Your Gun from Your Cold, Dead Fingers? - Freedom Outpost | Freedom Outpost


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

ekim said:


> I to am not concerned about Meangreen, but I wouldn't be to sure about all of them being dressed in blue or even wearing blue helmets.
> 
> Army Officer Wants You Disarmed: ?We Will Pry Your Gun from Your Cold, Dead Fingers? - Freedom Outpost | Freedom Outpost


1. The only way this could realistically be implemented would be if martial law was proclaimed. A disaster happens and martial law is declared, the constitution is null and void. Think 9-11 on a larger scale. The UN would most likely also be brought in. This is the most likely scenario.

2. Someone wages war on us. Again, martial law.

3. We have a coup d'éta. That would make people choose sides.

Other than that, no way. The article you posted could have been written at any point in history. You will always have people like that. No getting around it. People will always be people. You can't lump everyone into one big pile.

Over the years I have had many friends in LE. I have known a bad apple or 2 but the MAJORITY are decent folks. Once long, long ago in a land far, far away I had to deal with the feds. Even though I was a smartass (go figure that) they were decent people. I certainly didn't do anything to make their job easier but they still treated me with respect. That changed my mind about them, that's for sure.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

inceptor said:


> 1. The only way this could realistically be implemented would be if martial law was proclaimed. A disaster happens and martial law is declared, the constitution is null and void. Think 9-11 on a larger scale. The UN would most likely also be brought in. This is the most likely scenario.
> 
> 2. Someone wages war on us. Again, martial law.
> 
> ...


I'm not trying to lump anyone group or people, just making a point that others should also think before making statements. I have friends that are LEO's and in the military and I trust them all to a point just as I trust 99% of other people, but a badge nor a uniform doesn't get you an automatic pass either because they do have a so called obligation to inform/notify others of things they see/hear. Wear as we the average citizen do NOT have that option to report those in a power position too, unless you think you can trust those in power above those you wish to report. Sort of like "Who ya gonna call, Ghost Busters" cause you may make the call and find out it was/is a bad call. I consider what I post here as part of being prepared/informed, take it as you will. You want to "shoot" the messenger have at it, it changes nothing. Things have happened that those that dis agree with me/my post prove that all is not as they hope, no question about it. And I see nothing happening to change it either, Oath or not.


----------



## midtnfamilyguy (Nov 17, 2012)

Resister, as you pointed out "That was not the point I made" and maybe I was not as clear as I thought I was in typing, the point I was trying to make if one was to put the sentence just after the one you reposted was that because a single person or group of people wants to break the law of the land because they don't agree with it and it is not unjust does not give the right to resist. Sometimes my mind goes faster than I can type and I don't get my thoughts down correctly. I do agree that if a law is tyrannical or unjust one has the right to resist. We even had a law on the books where it states that if an arrest is unlawful, you cannot be convicted of resisting the arrest. I totally agree with it. Trust me I am well aware of where the legal system is at and I do not agree with all of it. I am very vocal of what I think are unjust laws. 

I believe what you have written in your last paragraph is the truth and am in agreement with it. Maybe I am naïve but I still want to have hope that the people of America will see this and change our great country back to its greatness that was once was. 

With that hopefully clearing up with what I thought was clear( it was to me, but as I wrote above), I do thank you for the opportunity to discuss this and see your point of view as well as mine. 

Ekim, I do hope I am strong enough if the situation presents itself that my foot doesn't slip off the fence you may think I am straddling.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

midtnfamilyguy said:


> Resister, as you pointed out "That was not the point I made" and maybe I was not as clear as I thought I was in typing, the point I was trying to make if one was to put the sentence just after the one you reposted was that because a single person or group of people wants to break the law of the land because they don't agree with it and it is not unjust does not give the right to resist. Sometimes my mind goes faster than I can type and I don't get my thoughts down correctly. I do agree that if a law is tyrannical or unjust one has the right to resist. We even had a law on the books where it states that if an arrest is unlawful, you cannot be convicted of resisting the arrest. I totally agree with it. Trust me I am well aware of where the legal system is at and I do not agree with all of it. I am very vocal of what I think are unjust laws.
> 
> I believe what you have written in your last paragraph is the truth and am in agreement with it. Maybe I am naïve but I still want to have hope that the people of America will see this and change our great country back to its greatness that was once was.
> 
> ...


I appreciate the civil discourse even though we may disagree on when a person has a right to resist. If you dig deep into your heart, you can think of scenarios that might pit you against the system. It could be forcing you to pay for abortions via Obamacare, giving up your private arms, or maybe turning your garden into a weed-patch simply Uncle Scam won't let you have a private garden. All of us have lines in the sand. What will you do when YOUR lines are crossed?


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

midtnfamilyguy said:


> Resister, as you pointed out "That was not the point I made" and maybe I was not as clear as I thought I was in typing, the point I was trying to make if one was to put the sentence just after the one you reposted was that because a single person or group of people wants to break the law of the land because they don't agree with it and it is not unjust does not give the right to resist. Sometimes my mind goes faster than I can type and I don't get my thoughts down correctly. I do agree that if a law is tyrannical or unjust one has the right to resist. We even had a law on the books where it states that if an arrest is unlawful, you cannot be convicted of resisting the arrest. I totally agree with it. Trust me I am well aware of where the legal system is at and I do not agree with all of it. I am very vocal of what I think are unjust laws.
> 
> I believe what you have written in your last paragraph is the truth and am in agreement with it. Maybe I am naïve but I still want to have hope that the people of America will see this and change our great country back to its greatness that was once was.
> 
> ...


From what I've read I could care less at this time if you slip or not, but that's just my PC way. Have a great day.


----------



## slewfoot (Nov 6, 2013)

It is not the police officer on the street or our military personnel that are the problem it is the ones we elected to office that make the laws that these people must up hold. If you do not like what you see vote them out of office. I have the highest respect for our military and law officers Just spend a day in their shoes. Too believe what some girl who is handed a script to follow, not.


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

sparkyprep said:


> I think MeanGreen has a point, and I can see his side of the argument. He has a legitimate point that not all LEO's are bad, and being from that background, I can understand his blanket defense of them. However, the question that the girl in the video asks remains ringing loud and clear. Even if you are a "good cop", at what point do you say, this is wrong, and I won't do it.


And if you think this doesn't happen everyday you're mistaken. We as Federal Agents took the same oath as soldiers in the military. Funny no one mentioned military war crimes or that the military "can just refuse to follow orders." In my agency we have a legal team that we can refer to and we have refused to follow orders given to us by the president on the basis that the order was unconstitutional. It was almost a running joke with Napolitano because almost everything she sent down the line got shot down. TSA is a joke and more of a hybrid of government and private. It was made a federal agency more for control of who is hired than anything. Think of it like this, a federal agency operating on private property and managed by private companies. I don't condone what TSA is doing so I don't fly. When I have to fly for work it always sucks because I have to get in a pissing match with these idiots on policy and flying armed.

With ALL NEWS, if it bleeds it leads and sensationalism rules. There are bad people in the world and they work in every type of job. There are law enforcement that break the law and violate constitutional rights. In many cases especially in state agencies it is a lack of training and a lack of continuing education and training. In any case bad law enforcement officers don't last long and are fired or they go to prison.

As for the video posted, it is pure propaganda against law enforcement and nothing more.

Let me also apologize to EKIM for my insults.


----------



## slewfoot (Nov 6, 2013)

Meangreen said:


> As for the video posted, it is pure propaganda against law enforcement and nothing more.


exactly.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Meangreen,

Apology accepted but not necessary as I figured you took it as a personal attack, it was not. As I said, don't go after the messenger. There is merit to the video and it is an issue we need to face. We have dis agreed before but that doesn't make us enemies but, IMO, thinking people trying to reach common ground and a good end result.


----------



## Arizona Infidel (Oct 5, 2013)

Meangreen said:


> There are bad people in the world and they work in every type of job. There are law enforcement that break the law and violate constitutional rights. In many cases especially in state agencies it is a lack of training and a lack of continuing education and training. In any case bad law enforcement officers don't last long and are fired or they go to prison.
> 
> .


 the problem I have with that is law enforcement has a lot of power. If law enforcement attacks me or assaults me I am not even supposed to defend myself from them. And if I do they are trained to escalate violence until they kill me. After the fact they will straighten it out, maybe. So ya, maybe your right and the bad ones get run out eventually. Maybe. Eventually. But how much damage is caused by the "bad apples" till then? And then instead of doing the right thing by the victims, the agency the "bad apples" worked for does everything they can to cover it up and sweep it under the rug. So peoples lives get destroyed, oh well. Because the justice system doesn't have much interest in getting to the truth and doing what's right. It only wants to win.


----------

