[MikeD]

You're skinnier than that guy, too.

Why don't you say that to my face...say, on the top of Old Rag...? (My wife will be up there, too...

)

 

[Lowlight7]

Oh, BURN.

My wife still accuses us of having gay sex on top of the mountain for 13.5 hours.


I can't quit you. Check your email.

 

[MikeD]

Oh, BURN.

My wife still accuses us of having gay sex on top of the mountain for 13.5 hours.


I can't quit you. Check your email.

She always forgets to factor in the driving time.

 

[valve bouncer]

That can't be Mike, his mouth is shut.

 

[MikeD]

That can't be Mike, his mouth is shut.

Don't try to fool us, either. Under your gun-averse Sino-Australian exterior lurks your true self.

 

[valve bouncer]

No tentacles, no care.

 

[MikeD]

No tentacles, no care.

Check your mail in the near future.

 

[sanjuro]

If you need a gun for self defense, you're doing it wrong. I will never understand the NEED for a gun. I enjoy guns and may some day purchase one for sport shooting, but if one is needed for self defense, then there are larger issues that a gun won't solve.

Uh, this happened around the corner from my house:

Family baffled by man's slaying near S.F. home

Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, June 27, 2008
William Amrull was found shot to death near his home.

(06-26) 12:28 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- William Amrull considered himself a freelance auto mechanic and invited anyone with broken-down cars to bring them over to his San Francisco home to fix.

Amrull's selflessness is making it all the more difficult for his family to understand why the 50-year old man was shot in the stomach and killed early Thursday around the corner from his home.

Amrull's body was found shortly before 3 a.m. on the sidewalk near Holly Park Circle and Newman Street, near Holly Park. The area is between Bernal Heights and Interstate 280 in the southern part of the city. No arrests have been made.

As police searched for a motive in the slaying, Amrull's family gathered to mourn the loss of the father of five children, ages 15 to 30.

Relatives had few answers. They said they had no reason to believe that anyone would target Amrull, who was known to everyone by his nickname, Juju.

"That's what we don't know. All we know is that they found him in the park," said Amrull's former sister-in-law, a Colma woman who wished to be identified only as Vicky. "We're still trying to figure out who would have done this and why.

"This had to have been random violence," she said. "He's a gentle person. He leaves everybody alone and keeps to himself."

Many neighbors brought their cars over for him to fix, Vicky said. "Juju was wonderful with cars, and everybody just loved Juju," she said.

Ashley Amrull, 21, of Daly City described her uncle as a wonderful man. "He was just really caring, really caring for his family," she said.

Asked what could have led to the slaying, she said, "I don't know. There could be nothing, like it's either kids just did that for nothing or ..." Her voice trailed off.

My attitude about guns is this: handguns and automatic weapons should be tightly controlled, so we minimize the risk of criminals and the insane from accessing them (not so easily done).

Shotguns and rifles are less likely to be used in crimes, but are more than adequate for home defense. Then, I would hope there would be less regulation.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Uh, this happened around the corner from my house:



My attitude about guns is this: handguns and automatic weapons should be tightly controlled, so we minimize the risk of criminals and the insane from accessing them (not so easily done).

Shotguns and rifles are less likely to be used in crimes, but are more than adequate for home defense. Then, I would hope there would be less regulation.

Well, home defense and self-defense are, obviously, not always going to be the same thing. The very article you posted speaks to both sides of the argument because clearly, the criminals are already armed and won't be willing to give up their guns, and had this guy been armed to defend himself, things might've turned out differently. And how practical would it be for the average, law abiding person to carry a shotgun around on his person?
Im also not advocating that everyone should be armed for self defense, but they should have the right to choose to. I bet that guy wished he was for a few moments there.


On a slightly related note, there's also another plus to having a generally-well-armed public. And Manimal may not want to hear this, but Im very glad that the police have to work, on some level, in fear that everyone "could" be armed. I feel safer knowing a cop outside my house would identify himself, (not only because he his legally bound, but because it's safer for him) rather than just kick my door in and start doing as he pleases without fear. The government is, on some level at lease, kept in check by having an armed public.

 

[sanjuro]

Well, home defense and self-defense are, obviously, not always going to be the same thing. The very article you posted speaks to both sides of the argument because clearly, the criminals are already armed and won't be willing to give up their guns, and had this guy been armed to defend himself, things might've turned out differently. And how practical would it be for the average, law abiding person to carry a shotgun around on his person?
Im also not advocating that everyone should be armed for self defense, but they should have the right to choose to. I bet that guy wished he was for a few moments there.

I have been threaten multiple times and only once has someone pulled a gun on me. None of those instances required a handgun, even my mugging.

He pulled his gun before I could have done anything, and very likely I would have given him my gun if I had one. And I did have a gun, I wasn't going to shoot a kid in the back because he stole my wallet.

All of those instances I could have avoided if I was alert and ran. You might be called cowardly, but muggings and street fights aren't instances where I think bravery is required. Common sense should tell you to avoid these incidents.

I suppose if I carried large sums of cash regularly, then I would require a gun and then I would hope to acquire a concealed weapon license easily. But I think everyone here has to acknowledge that if everyone carried a concealed weapon, there would be a lot more arguments settled with pistols than with words.

On a slightly related note, there's also another plus to having a generally-well-armed public. And Manimal may not want to hear this, but Im very glad that the police have to work, on some level, in fear that everyone "could" be armed. I feel safer knowing a cop outside my house would identify himself, (not only because he his legally bound, but because it's safer for him) rather than just kick my door in and start doing as he pleases without fear. The government is, on some level at lease, kept in check by having an armed public.

I am surprised you have an opinion I disagree with strongly.

The police are held in check by the laws of our country. As a self-admitted scofflaw, I am thinking about ways to run red lights and cause civil anarchy, but law enforcement officers are controlled by the laws of our government and the decisions made the courts.

They do not kick in doors randomly because of laws about search and seizure. They do not assault the arrested because the laws against assaulting arrested.

Police abuses will happen, of course, but an aware populace will prevent this by electing overseeing officials and making these incidents known to all.

From my experience, police abuse occurs when no one knows and no one cares. When I need a gun to protect myself from the police, then real anarchy has occurred.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I am surprised you have an opinion I disagree with strongly.

The police are held in check by the laws of our country. As a self-admitted scofflaw, I am thinking about ways to run red lights and cause civil anarchy, but law enforcement officers are controlled by the laws of our government and the decisions made the courts.

They do not kick in doors randomly because of laws about search and seizure. They do not assault the arrested because the laws against assaulting arrested.

Police abuses will happen, of course, but an aware populace will prevent this by electing overseeing officials and making these incidents known to all.

From my experience, police abuse occurs when no one knows and no one cares. When I need a gun to protect myself from the police, then real anarchy has occurred.

Those are all wonderful words, but cops don't walk on eggshells just because the law tells them to.
And I wasn't making the point that you, or any other law abiding citizen needs a gun to defend themselves from the police (why you chose to take that away from my point is beyond me because I know you're smarter than that), just that Im glad to live in a society in which the average citizen has equal means to protect himself as a cop does... that the government doesn't have all the power. And government servants, knowing this, must tread lightly wherever they go.

 

[MikeD]

I have been threaten multiple times and only once has someone pulled a gun on me. None of those instances required a handgun, even my mugging.

He pulled his gun before I could have done anything, and very likely I would have given him my gun if I had one. And I did have a gun, I wasn't going to shoot a kid in the back because he stole my wallet.

All of those instances I could have avoided if I was alert and ran. You might be called cowardly, but muggings and street fights aren't instances where I think bravery is required. Common sense should tell you to avoid these incidents.

I suppose if I carried large sums of cash regularly, then I would require a gun and then I would hope to acquire a concealed weapon license easily. But I think everyone here has to acknowledge that if everyone carried a concealed weapon, there would be a lot more arguments settled with pistols than with words.

'Cowardly' is fine if it leaves you 'alive.' No one but an idiot would criticize anyone for surviving a life-and-death encounter. (Excepting, perhaps, if you put other innocents at risk to save your own ass....) There's no moral obligation to meet violence with violence...just a recognition that it can be a practical tool in a violent encounter. As a security professional, I am obligated to avoid danger with forethought, escape a dangerous situation if possible, and survive it by any and all available means in the event I cannot escape it.

You don't need a gun any more or less if you're carrying large sums of money. A gun is there to protect your life and the lives of others, not pieces of green paper.

You're completely right that awareness is the first and most-effective line of self-defense.

You're completely right that once someone has the drop on you, a gun can become effectively worthless...but not always. Just recently an off-duty FBI agent was quite coincidentally robbed by a guy with (as I recall) some sort of sub-machinegun, and effectively defended herself with a pistol.

However, once someone has pointed a gun at you, they have threatened you with deadly force and should/can be dealt with in kind; you should never consider "he only wanted a wallet" as a reason not to shoot, stab, or otherwise neutralize (if possible) someone who's pointing a gun at you (ed: I'm not advocating a violent response as an only option, just pointing out that if it helps you survive, you should use deadly force against a lethal assault without hesitation). The wallet is besides the point; a threat on one's life justifies response in kind. Plenty of people have been shot after a crime in order to dispose of witnesses.

Guns don't change one's nature. In fact, they make most people more keenly aware of the gravity of any confrontational encounter. To say that average people will start settling arguments with bullets if they have a gun is nonsense. A gun doesn't change who you are, and people will not commit an act of such gravity, especially such violent gravity, without reason. (And anyone criminally inclined enough to do so is probably already carrying one regardless of legality. Reasonably highly trained professional killers (infantrymen) often have difficulty pulling the trigger on another human being in a time of war; civilians on a US street are not going to blow each other's brains out because handguns are legally available for carry.

Places with high ease of concealed carry most often have extremely low crime rates. Unlike many pro-gun-rights people, I don't make a causative connection between these, but it does show that concealed carry doesn't make for an instant, mythical Old West bloodfest in the streets.

 

[sanjuro]

Those are all wonderful words, but cops don't walk on eggshells just because the law tells them to.
And I wasn't making the point that you, or any other law abiding citizen needs a gun to defend themselves from the police (why you chose to take that away from my point is beyond me because I know you're smarter than that), just that Im glad to live in a society in which the average citizen has equal means to protect himself as a cop does... that the government doesn't have all the power. And government servants, knowing this, must tread lightly wherever they go.

Like Waco, Ruby Ridge, or Operation MOVE?

If the police need to search my home, they will get the legal writs and use appropriate force.

I might have listed examples of excessive force, but I doubt cops are unwilling to search because of the firepower. Maybe the lawsuits afterwards.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Like Waco, Ruby Ridge, or Operation MOVE?

If the police need to search my home, they will get the legal writs and use appropriate force.

I might have listed examples of excessive force, but I doubt cops are unwilling to search because of the firepower. Maybe the lawsuits afterwards.

If you're going to keep sidestepping the point, there's no real reason to keep debating I guess...but if you honestly believe that the police don't behave differently when they believe someone is/could be armed vs. when they know they aren't then you're delusional.

 

[MikeD]

Like Waco, Ruby Ridge, or Operation MOVE?

If the police need to search my home, they will get the legal writs and use appropriate force.

I might have listed examples of excessive force, but I doubt cops are unwilling to search because of the firepower. Maybe the lawsuits afterwards.

You and Shirley will both find examples for your sides; I'd guess it really depends on the time, place, and people involved as to what effect it has.

 

[sanjuro]

If you're going to keep sidestepping the point, there's no real reason to keep debating I guess...but if you honestly believe that the police don't behave differently when they believe someone is/could be armed vs. when they know they aren't then you're delusional.

If you mean, do they approach my car with guns drawn if I just tried for last 30 minutes to evade them?

Or do you mean they didn't break in my door to investigate the homicide around the corner because I might be waiting with an AK-47?

 

[BurlyShirley]

If you mean, do they approach my car with guns drawn if I just tried for last 30 minutes to evade them?

Or do you mean they didn't break in my door to investigate the homicide around the corner because I might be waiting with an AK-47?

I mean they approach almost all situations with care and caution, not just because they're bound to by law, but because it's for their own good. The fact that any citizen may be waiting with an AK-47 is just another reason to go by the book, instead of just doing as they please with reckless abandon because there's very little on-the-spot oversight of many of the things they do.

 

[sanjuro]

However, once someone has pointed a gun at you, they have threatened you with deadly force and should/can be dealt with in kind; you should never consider "he only wanted a wallet" as a reason not to shoot, stab, or otherwise neutralize (if possible) someone who's pointing a gun at you (ed: I'm not advocating a violent response as an only option, just pointing out that if it helps you survive, you should use deadly force against a lethal assault without hesitation). The wallet is besides the point; a threat on one's life justifies response in kind. Plenty of people have been shot after a crime in order to dispose of witnesses.

There is the idea of rehabilitation, and I believe children (and it was a teenager who held me up) have a strong chance to change.

I don't know if you are talking about your own hypothetical situations, but I had killed the kid who robbed me, I wouldn't talking about it, and I probably would not work with teenagers ever again, sad considering I coached a 1st round NBA draftee and a California junior cycling champion, as well as hundreds of teenagers I have helped over the years.

While my life was at risk, it seemed appropriate to give my stuff up and I made the right decision. If I had felt fighting was the right thing to do, if the kid was freaking or someone else's life was at risk, I would have attacked him with no hesitation using every advantage available, particularly that he straddling a bike.

Guns don't change one's nature. In fact, they make most people more keenly aware of the gravity of any confrontational encounter. To say that average people will start settling arguments with bullets if they have a gun is nonsense. A gun doesn't change who you are, and people will not commit an act of such gravity, especially such violent gravity, without reason. (And anyone criminally inclined enough to do so is probably already carrying one regardless of legality. Reasonably highly trained professional killers (infantrymen) often have difficulty pulling the trigger on another human being in a time of war; civilians on a US street are not going to blow each other's brains out because handguns are legally available for carry.

Places with high ease of concealed carry most often have extremely low crime rates. Unlike many pro-gun-rights people, I don't make a causative connection between these, but it does show that concealed carry doesn't make for an instant, mythical Old West bloodfest in the streets.

Funny enough, I remember one instance on a New Year's Eve on Decatur Street. This Guido in a camelhair coat was arguing with several gutter punks. After a few tense moments, the Guido put his hand into his coat, like he was reaching for his gun. In not surprising fashion, the gutter punks called him "Double-O 7" and demanded he pull his piece.

At this point, since I was about 10 feet away, I maneuvered myself behind several other people and a steel pole.

The Guido never pulled his gun, if even had one, and this incident wound down peacefully.

You might debate this proves your point that people are unwilling to shoot each other. Since I was a witness to this whole incident, I felt I avoided getting shot.

Considering this was 11:30pm, not 4am, I assume somewhat sober heads prevailed. I have seen my share of 3am fights, and who knows the outcome if guns were available.

Laws preventing bringing guns to bars are designed to prevent these kinds of incidents from happening, but making it a serious crime to conceal a weapon is more effective.

 

[sanjuro]

I mean they approach almost all situations with care and caution, not just because they're bound to by law, but because it's for their own good. The fact that any citizen may be waiting with an AK-47 is just another reason to go by the book, instead of just doing as they please with reckless abandon because there's very little on-the-spot oversight of many of the things they do.

I think of it as strategy vs tactics. The legal strategy of search and seizure should be well known to all police officers (and many perps, if "99 Problems" is true).

The tactics of approaching possible armed criminals should also be known to the police.

I wonder if it is because I live in a liberal city, where I consider the police to be ineffective (see story below), whereas you live in the South, where the police are too effective (see video below).

Fong aims to test her shooting skills

Brent Begin, The Examiner
2008-06-04 17:41:45.0

SAN FRANCISCO -

The City’s police chief may be a little rusty with her gun. Or her handgun, an outdated Beretta, may be a little rusty.

Either way, Chief Heather Fong will put both her gun and her skills to the test soon in the wake of a letter sent to city officials Monday by a reassigned officer who revealed that the chief of police hasn’t shown up to the department’s biannual shooting range certification in about five years.

In addition, Fong still carries a handgun that was phased out in 2004 when the Police Department required all officers to switch to the newer SIGSauer .40-caliber handguns.

“The duties of a police chief are demanding and time consuming,” Fong said in a statement. “I acknowledge that I have not scheduled time for firearm requalifications. This will be addressed for future requalifications.”

That may happen within the month, according to the latest department bulletin, calling a range of badge numbers, including Fong’s 2020, to a shooting-range certification.

The Police Department operates two shooting ranges, one near Lake Merced and another at San Francisco International Airport. All police officers who carry firearms must test their skills at the range twice a year, according to the bulletin.

The letter was written by Officer Andrew Cohen, who was sent to an administrative position after producing a series of offensive video vignettes in 2005. It was sent to the Police Commission, Mayor’s Office, Board of Supervisors and several other city leaders. It called for an immediate investigation from both the department’s management control division and the Police Commission, which meets this evening.

“I know the Chief is busy and an occasional lapse or nonappearance may be justified, however ten consecutive failures to qualify are simply outrageous and insulting to all the men and women of the department,” the letter said.

 

[Samirol]

http://www.theagitator.com/2008/05/07/tracy-ingle-another-drug-war-outrage/

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=4801701

http://www.latimes.com/classified/automotive/news/la-me-corrupt5jan05,0,1674447.story

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2008/05/08/tesler_0509_web.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab

http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_9199406?source=commented-news

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/05/26/swat-team-mistakes-lara-croft-crazed-gunman

http://blog.mlive.com/kzgazette/2008/06/kalamazoo_department_of_public_4.html#more

http://www.wmctv.com/global/story.asp?s=8515744

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080617_The_cops_came__searched_and_left_a_mess_for_puzzled_homeowner.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91582619

These are just a few examples of police overreaching in the past couple months, either with beatings or searches and seizures. If anything, my guess would be that guns make police MORE paranoid and MORE likely to react with violence. It is the same in Iraq, because there is constant danger, the people there are more likely to react violently and result in more deaths that shouldn't have happened.

 

[Silver]

If you're going to keep sidestepping the point, there's no real reason to keep debating I guess...but if you honestly believe that the police don't behave differently when they believe someone is/could be armed vs. when they know they aren't then you're delusional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston

Yeah, but it doesn't matter. You still end up dead with drugs planted in your house.

 

[manimal]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91582619

These are just a few examples of police overreaching in the past couple months, either with beatings or searches and seizures.

ok, i did a random selection of your references so i could see for myself this "overreaching" you claim. i chose your last link and read it...what, exactly, is illegal or overreaching about an officer that knows what he's doing and has a ton of experience reading people and finding dope/money? there's NOTHING even questionable about policing in that link. i don't have an hour to read every link you posted so am i to assume that all of your references are as devoid of merit as this one?

But Upshaw was blunt. "We're a very poor department. The county commission don't give us much money," he says. "In fact, they don't allow us any money for equipment. So we use seized drug money to buy basic items that should be provided to us, such as bulletproof vests, gun belts, guns. Nine out of 14 cars been bought with drug money."

yup..he's a thug in a uniform alright

my department waited a long time to finally get tasers; the chief wanted to wait for the outcome of several independent studies before he ok'd their use. and now that the studies are complete and the proof is there to show that they're good to go we used our take from a $300k dope money seizure to buy them.

 

[Silver]

ok, i did a random selection of your references so i could see for myself this "overreaching" you claim. i chose your last link and read it...what, exactly, is illegal or overreaching about an officer that knows what he's doing and has a ton of experience reading people and finding dope/money? there's NOTHING even questionable about policing in that link. i don't have an hour to read every link you posted so am i to assume that all of your references are as devoid of merit as this one?

yup..he's a thug in a uniform alright

Did you read the story?

After the classroom portion of the training, Ingram takes his students out on the highway for hands-on experience. If they make a stop and find hidden currency, the Barbour County Sheriff's Office gets to keep 40 percent.

The Drug Enforcement Administration frowns on this arrangement — one agent in Birmingham called it "mercenary." Ingram asserts it's perfectly legal and that other highway interdiction trainers across the South do it, too.

"That's a pretty questionable practice. It's not piracy, we're not flying the Jolly Roger here, but it's at best privateering," says Jack Killorin, the Atlanta-based chairman of the Domestic Highway Enforcement Project, which is part of the White House drug czar's office.

Not exactly the ACLU with the problem there, is it?

 

[manimal]

i don't think the article really explains how that works. the trainee's obviously have some form of jurisdiction in the area they are being trained in. If they make a seizure the respective agency is allowed to keep 80% of the money after the court case is completed. it is customary for any assisting agency to get a cut of the money as well so i can see how the Barbour county SD can justify this "cut." For instance, one of our interdiction guys stopped a car that displayed nearly all of the indicators for trafficking and driver even had numerous trafficking charges in the recent past. our interdiction officer did not have his K9 that day to do a walk-around and he was denied consent to search the vehicle. he obviously had to let the driver go after giving him the citation for speeding but our interdiction officer called an interdiction officer in the next city and advised them of the situation. the other officers stopped him for a legitimate traffic infraction, their k9 alerted on the vehicle for drugs, it was searched and $300k was found in a hidden compartment. the other agency split the 80% take with us because the information came directly from one of our officers.
drug money is big business for both sides of the law so of course there is going to be some jockeying for the spoils of war. as long as the stop is done within the parameters of the 4th/14th amendments and case law I don't see a problem with it. where else is the drug money going to go? why not put it into better equipment and training for the people out there protecting you?

oh yeah, to get back on track with the thread: the dude that was stopped also had several automatic weapons in hidden compartments as well.

 

[Samirol]

my department waited a long time to finally get tasers; the chief wanted to wait for the outcome of several independent studies before he ok'd their use. and now that the studies are complete and the proof is there to show that they're good to go we used our take from a $300k dope money seizure to buy them.

Silver pretty much covered why I included it in the post, and underfunding of police is a major problem. You don't have to read the articles, I posted them mainly to show that, just over the past 1-2 months, there have been several abuses of power.

I mainly wanted to display the fact that police sometimes take an us vs them approach to their work, treating everyone as a criminal until proven innocent. I do appreciate your insight as a police officer, though.

 

[sanjuro]

i don't think the article really explains how that works. the trainee's obviously have some form of jurisdiction in the area they are being trained in. If they make a seizure the respective agency is allowed to keep 80% of the money after the court case is completed. it is customary for any assisting agency to get a cut of the money as well so i can see how the Barbour county SD can justify this "cut." For instance, one of our interdiction guys stopped a car that displayed nearly all of the indicators for trafficking and driver even had numerous trafficking charges in the recent past. our interdiction officer did not have his K9 that day to do a walk-around and he was denied consent to search the vehicle. he obviously had to let the driver go after giving him the citation for speeding but our interdiction officer called an interdiction officer in the next city and advised them of the situation. the other officers stopped him for a legitimate traffic infraction, their k9 alerted on the vehicle for drugs, it was searched and $300k was found in a hidden compartment. the other agency split the 80% take with us because the information came directly from one of our officers.
drug money is big business for both sides of the law so of course there is going to be some jockeying for the spoils of war. as long as the stop is done within the parameters of the 4th/14th amendments and case law I don't see a problem with it. where else is the drug money going to go? why not put it into better equipment and training for the people out there protecting you?

oh yeah, to get back on track with the thread: the dude that was stopped also had several automatic weapons in hidden compartments as well.

Well, if you were a San Francisco cop, you would have to call the EEOC for approval before pulling a minority over.

If you are a Southern cop, it is by the grace of god you shot that poor boy down.

Seriously, I am not bothered by excessive search and seizure. If you get caught and you are guilty, I am supposed to feel sorry that you are a victim of the system?

I know there are hundreds of cases of misjustice, even today, but again, training and oversight is the key.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Seriously, I am not bothered by excessive search and seizure.

Do violations of any of the first 10 amendments bother you? 0/2 so far.

 

[Defenestrated]

What? I love it when my rights are violated!

 

[Silver]

drug money is big business for both sides of the law so of course there is going to be some jockeying for the spoils of war. as long as the stop is done within the parameters of the 4th/14th amendments and case law I don't see a problem with it. where else is the drug money going to go? why not put it into better equipment and training for the people out there protecting you?

oh yeah, to get back on track with the thread: the dude that was stopped also had several automatic weapons in hidden compartments as well.

Two words: Perverse Incentive

As to the guns, he was merely exercising his 2nd amendment rights...

 

[sanjuro]

Do violations of any of the first 10 amendments bother you? 0/2 so far.

A murder 100 feet from my nephew's bedroom really upsets me.

I wish the police would patrol my neighborhood more.

 

[Samirol]

A murder 100 feet from my nephew's bedroom really upsets me.

I wish the police would patrol my neighborhood more.

Patrols aren't violations of amendment rights, they can effectively curtail crime without being fascists

 

[Samirol]

and more supreme court rulings, this time the texas supreme court

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/06/28/0628exorcism.html

The Texas Supreme Court, showing continued deference to religious practice, on Friday tossed out a $188,000 judgment against members of a Pentecostal church who restrained a teenager they feared had come under demonic influence.

Laura Schubert claimed that rough handling during the hours-long 1996 incident — involving the "laying on of hands" and intensive prayer — left her disabled by post-traumatic stress disorder.

Jurors agreed, finding that Schubert, then 17, was falsely imprisoned and assaulted by a pastor, youth minister and members of Pleasant Glade Assembly of God church in suburban Fort Worth.

However, the state Supreme Court dismissed Schubert's case in a 6-3 ruling, saying her lawsuit violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protections on religious expression — the latest in a string of decisions limiting judicial oversight of religious institutions and practice.

"The case, as tried, presents an ecclesiastical dispute over religious conduct that would unconstitutionally entangle the court in matters of church doctrine," said the majority opinion, written by Justice David Medina.

A dissent by Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, joined in part by two other justices, said the Pleasant Glade decision improperly confers sweeping immunity to those who "merely allege a religious motive."

Wrote Jefferson: "The First Amendment guards religious liberty; it does not sanction intentional abuse in religion's name."

Schubert's case began after she collapsed during a Sunday worship service. Several church members, alert for signs of nefarious activity after a youth reported seeing a demon on church grounds, escorted her into a classroom to pray for her safety.

Schubert testified that she was pinned to the floor for three hours while she screamed, flailed and begged to be freed.

Even so, three days later she returned to the Colleyville church, where the experience was repeated.

Imagine what would have happened if a Muslim group did that, it is ridiculous.

 

[sanjuro]

Patrols aren't violations of amendment rights, they can effectively curtail crime without being fascists

I'm not exactly sure how I became the spokesman for overturning the Bill of Rights.

 

[Samirol]

I'm not exactly sure how I became the spokesman for overturning the Bill of Rights.

Only the 4th

 

[Silver]

Schubert's case began after she collapsed during a Sunday worship service. Several church members, alert for signs of nefarious activity after a youth reported seeing a demon on church grounds, escorted her into a classroom to pray for her safety.

Schubert testified that she was pinned to the floor for three hours while she screamed, flailed and begged to be freed.

Even so, three days later she returned to the Colleyville church, where the experience was repeated.

The amount of stupid at the beginning and end of that paragraph is mind blowing...

 

[manimal]

As to the guns, he was merely exercising his 2nd amendment rights...

minus the whole convicted felon part......

 

[Silver]

minus the whole convicted felon part......

I'm a strict constructionist.

And there is nothing in the 2nd amendment that says you can take guns away from convicted felons. Read the text of the amendment.

 

[Defenestrated]