If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Courthouse News Service)   Refusing to let the police use your home as a lookout? That's a smashed open door and assault and arresting and jailing and some looting by the police while you are away   (courthousenews.com) divider line 372
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

14045 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jul 2013 at 5:03 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



372 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-05 03:16:22 AM

pedrop357: OgreMagi: lucksi: Isn't it time that there should be one good officer along all the bad apples who speaks out or stops shiat like this? Because the bad apples are the vast minority, or so I am told.

That is exactly why I stopped trusting the police and always assume they are lying.  When has there ever been a news story which stated, "internal affairs was tipped off to the abuse and corruption by fellow police officers."  I don't remember ever hearing a story like that, though there has to have been a few if there is no "thin blue line".

I've heard of some, but most are usually a cop who was on scene and not actively bad filing a report implicating the active bad cops.

The unicorn of 'good cop' incidents would be finding an incident where the good cop actually stopped the bad cops from abusing, hurting, or killing the suspect.  No matter how many cops are at the scene, the best that can be hoped for is that some of the cops will stand idly by and do nothing instead of assisting in the victimization.  The bad cops will hurt or kill while you while the "good" cops do nothing.

The math and laws of randomness and/or probability do not support this idea that the bad cops are a minority.  What are the odds that the only bad cops on the force all happened to be on the same shift, in the same beat/sector/precinct and all got dispatched (or self-dispatched) to that incident?  If they aren't the only bad ones, just how many more are there?


If you or I witness a crime and fail to report it, we can be charged with being an accessory.  If a cop fails to report another cop committing a crime, he is by definition a bad cop.  He should be tried for being an accessory to whatever crime he witnessed.  I'm tired of cops being rewarded with two weeks of paid administrative leave as a punishment.  That works as well as giving a small child a time out in front of the tv.
 
2013-07-05 03:36:26 AM

hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: And for anyone who claims the police aren't military.  Take a look at them these days.  They're wearing military clothes and carrying military grade weapons.  Besides, as the writers of the Constitution defined it, the police do count.

Erm, I hate to bust on your parade here, but legally the civilian police are NOT considered members of the military or state militia/national guard. This isn't a third amendment issue.

Fourth, Fifth and possibly sixth, on the other hand....


When the cops are carrying AR15s, and wearing tacti-cool body armor, they're soldiers.
 
2013-07-05 03:38:57 AM
One of the shiattiest PD's ANYWHERE. Chief was asked to step down. I hope the family enjoys their money and gets a lot of it.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/feb/15/henderson-police-chief-a sk ed-step-down/#axzz2Y9dFBXo5
 
2013-07-05 03:44:35 AM
I'm also finding it hilarious that some of the same Farkers who were saying "but the founding fathers didn't mean assault rifles when they wrote the 2nd amendment!" a few months ago are the same Farkers who are sticking with the strictest definition of the 3rd amendment. You can't have it both ways, Statists.
 
2013-07-05 04:04:30 AM
Another recent lawsuit against these same assholes cost the city a quarter million dollars when they beat and kicked a diabetic in the head while he was held and restrained. None of the officers involved were dismissed. If I lived in that shiathole I would be at City Council meeting raising ten tons of holy hell. They did get Police Chief Jutta to step down last year. She got a $200,000 buyout and will receive a yearly pension in excess of $100,000. None of the actions during the cop's assault on the diabetic would have even been recorded except a Nevada Highway Patrol car's dash cam caught the incident on tape. The city of Henderson demanded that the Henderson PD install dash cams in all units, but apparently the police union will have to approve of allowing cameras in publicly purchased patrol cars.  Seriously, fix this shiat.
 
2013-07-05 04:14:08 AM

Dahnkster: The city of Henderson demanded that the Henderson PD install dash cams in all units, but apparently the police union will have to approve of allowing cameras in publicly purchased patrol cars.  Seriously, fix this shiat.


Tell the police union to go fark themselves and install the dash cams.  Make it policy that any cop who tampers with the camera will be fired immediately.  When the union throws a hissy fit, repeat the "go fark yourself" statement.  If they threaten to strike, explain the part about there is no right to strike against the public safety and any police officer who strikes (or does a sick-out) will be terminated.  Hire new cops.  Problem solved.  This is a case of a police department being rotten to the core.  When that happens, the only real option is to scrap everything and start over.
 
2013-07-05 04:34:02 AM

fjnorton: That is one seriously messed up story.


Anyone taking bets that none of this actually happened?
 
2013-07-05 04:37:18 AM

OgreMagi: And for anyone who claims the police aren't military. Take a look at them these days. They're wearing military clothes and carrying military grade weapons.


Yeah, so what?  I can go out and purchase all the same clothes and gear that is worn by soldiers.  Would that make me a soldier?  No.  Of course not.  And the same holds true for police.

Also, they are NOT carrying military grade weapons.  A select few carry semi-automatic versions of military style firearms (and many of those can also be purchased by civilians in most parts of the country!) and wear specialized clothing.  The vast majority of police in this country still wear a "traditional" police uniform and carry a pistol.  Of course, no reason why you should let facts get in the way of your paranoid conspiracy rant.
 
2013-07-05 04:38:33 AM
I'm throwing the bullshiat flag on this one.  Every "news" site is repeats the one story from court house news.  All the websites are extreme right wing anti-government websites.

Until a REAL source with some thing like COURT DOCUMENTS I'll believe this.
 
2013-07-05 04:39:38 AM

OregonVet: Yes, the police count as soldiers. I doubt this will turn into a Federal case, but their asses will get handed back to them.


No, they do not count as soldiers.  They count as law enforcement agents.  There is a huge world of difference there.
 
2013-07-05 05:14:56 AM
I see this story getting legs. I did some Googles and it is spreading rather quickly. Particularly, on libertarian blogs, legal/attorney sights arguing about rather this would in fact constitute a 3rd amendment constitutional issue. Conservative and gun-rights blogs are also discussing this case. Wonder if any of the national news agencies will cover this? Given this department's history of lawsuits and fark-ups, I can't see how they in any way,shape or form this PD or city of Henderson  want to see these stories come to light.
 
2013-07-05 05:19:03 AM

WireFire2: I'm throwing the bullshiat flag on this one.  Every "news" site is repeats the one story from court house news.  All the websites are extreme right wing anti-government websites.

Until a REAL source with some thing like COURT DOCUMENTS I'll believe this.



Mitchell et al v. City of Henderson, Nevada et al, Nevada District Court, case number 2:2013cv01154, filed June 30, 2013, Presiding Judge Andrew P. Gordon.
 
2013-07-05 05:20:58 AM

obamadidcoke: I had a chunk of 7.62 mm that was accidentally discharged penetrate one I was riding in and the round skipped around and hit three guys before coming to a stop in my forearm. So let the cops use them.


jesus! I knew when we worked on them  the old timers would call them rolling coffins but I figured it was just because it was a target of opportunity. I never heard anything like that. crazy
 
2013-07-05 05:23:26 AM

WireFire2: I'm throwing the bullshiat flag on this one.  Every "news" site is repeats the one story from court house news.  All the websites are extreme right wing anti-government websites.

Until a REAL source with some thing like COURT DOCUMENTS I'll believe this.


That was already covered two pages back. Please try to keep up with threat of the class... and pick up your BS flag off the field of play. Thank you.

http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/mitchell-v-hpd-complaint .p df
 
2013-07-05 05:25:10 AM
Darn it. I now see Mock26 already had this matter well in hand.
 
2013-07-05 05:54:53 AM

eventhelosers: First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest. Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.

Second: Exactly, a waste of taxpayer money.

Third: You got it right. (88M 1070 driver, I hauled these, M60's, M1's, glad I didn't have to correct you)

Fourth: Often free via grants, still doesn't mean a police department should be a standing army. Maintenance cost compared to armored bread truck?


They might be able to get it by free grant, but as you say, it still takes maintenance, and likely needs some refurbishment before use.  Maintenance costs?  Well, that would depend on how often it's used.

However, from my knowledge most SWAT 'Bread Trucks' aren't actually all that armored, and while they might be cheaper on maintenance per mile, by the time you pay to have one armored against rifle shots you're looking at several decades of maintenance equal to the 'free' of the milsurp vehicle.

Then there's the idea that tracked vehicles can go places that a wheeled vehicle cannot.  The end result can get complicated.
 
2013-07-05 06:06:04 AM

lucksi: Isn't it time that there should be one good officer along all the bad apples who speaks out or stops shiat like this? Because the bad apples are the vast minority, or so I am told.


The theory I've been espousing lately is that it's less that you have good cops and bad cops.  It's that you have good and bad departments.  IE while the level of 'goodness' of a specific cop in a department/precinct/agency/office might vary, it'll tend to track with how grey the whole organization is.

Thus you'll see two police agencies in very similar circumstances; one with zero lawsuits against it and another with over a dozen.

A good department will consistently weed out the 'bad eggs' early on, provide continual correction, etc...  Bad departments play cover-up, drive out the uncorruptible, and corrupt that which remains until they're all bad.

Going by the other posts about other incidents involving this same department; it's one of the bad ones.  Note how it pays out money but doesn't remove or discipline the offending officers.
 
2013-07-05 06:36:22 AM
♪ ♫ I'm proud to be an American, where at least I delusionally think I'm free. ♪ ♫

www.prlog.org
 
2013-07-05 08:16:05 AM

TopoGigo: hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: They violated both the 3rd

No, they did not. There is NO Third Amendment Violation here, as the police are NOT considered under constitutional jurisprudence as members of the United States Military OR a State National Guard or Militia under the command of a Federal military commander.

Instead, it's a slam dunk for a fourth, and a fifth amendment violation of their rights.

Any judge who holds an original intent doctrine would say this violates the third. In fact, I'd guess the SCOUS would rule 6-3 against, depending on Scalia's mood.


Exactly.  While this isn't within the literal wording of the Third Amendment, it's certainly a violation of the spirit of it and Framer's Intent.

1. There wasn't a clear distinction between soldiers and policemen when Amendment 3 was written, as the militias (or in the Colonial era, the British Army) did routine law enforcement functions.

2. Since the literal wording of the Amendment specifies "soldiers", are you honestly going to argue they can station Marines, Airmen, Sailors and Coast Guardsmen in people's homes?  Amendment Three doesn't specify "military" it says "soldiers".  There is only one Federal Court case on that amendment (Engblom_v._Carey), so there is very little in the way of official interpretation (and that case hinged on whether or not housing provided pursuant to a job counted as under Third amendment protection, since it was about a group of correctional officers on strike, who had housing provided by the prison they worked at, and they took their housing from them while on strike and gave it to National Guard who had been called up to replace them)

3. In any case, the police are armed men who represent and enforce the will of the government.  The whole idea of the Third Amendment is to prevent government from placing representatives (especially armed ones who can enforce the will of the government) in your homes and thus violating the sanctity of your homes and your privacy.

If you're saying this isn't an Amendment 3 violation, why don't we just follow that to it's literal conclusion and say that whenever a police department can't get a warrant for a search on a house, they just demand to use that house for a lookout/stakeout point, and the owners can't refuse so one way or the other the police get in.
 
2013-07-05 10:20:36 AM

ocd002: Note to self if I ever get a call like that, spray paint a big sign on the garage door that says "the police asked me to use my house as a lookout! Isn't that neat?!" after the call where I refused and before they arrive.

Yeah, I have a big mouth lol.


Then you get arrested and charged with "vandalism of temporary police headquarters."
 
2013-07-05 10:22:26 AM
Okay follow me here.
There are no good cops.

Only a small portion of cops actually commit acts like this.
But the cops who consider themselves "good" because they dont do these things cover for the bad cops who do commit these crimes.

Cops can do what they want, shoot who they want, break all the laws they want and even if you have video its a 50/50 chance someone will believe you.

If I am on a jury I think I will assume the cop is a complete liar in every instance.
 
2013-07-05 10:33:09 AM
... and a couple million payout after the lawyers are done with them, which means
... a couple million in damages paid by an insurance company, which means
... higher insurance premiums passed through to John Q. Taxpayer
... and several police officers lose their jobs and their pensions

So everyone wins!
 
2013-07-05 10:48:35 AM

real_headhoncho: LrdPhoenix: bunner: HempHead: AngryDragon: Dear American Government,

THIS IS NOT A PLAYBOOK.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x310]

Actually it is, Hitler laid out his complete strategy and followed it.

OK, so empirically speaking, it wasn't a good playbook?

Actually, empirically speaking, it was a great playbook.  Hitler did manage to rebuild the German economy and manufacturing capabilities from one of the worst conditions in the history of any country in the world to the point that it could compete on a global scale, and then very, very nearly used that to conquer the world, in only just a decade or so.

It's kinda like the lowest rated football team with 0 wins getting a new coach who manages to take them to the Superbowl which they only lose by 1 point.


Yeah, but the losing team doesn't have it's hometown bombed to shiat and then the ruins divided for several decades and anyone that tries to cross over the dividing line gets shot at.


Sounds like someone's come up with a way to boost Superbowl viewership...
 
2013-07-05 11:55:31 AM
Should have called 911 instead of mommy.   "Yeah 911 5 cops are breaking into my house because I don't want to let them use it for a stakeout.  I just need you for a totally awesome recording to use in the lawsuit."
 
2013-07-05 12:34:11 PM

Prince George: Should have called 911 instead of mommy.   "Yeah 911 5 cops are breaking into my house because I don't want to let them use it for a stakeout.  I just need you for a totally awesome recording to use in the lawsuit."


You're implying that the same 911 system that goes hand-in-hand with the cops wouldn't just happen to, uh, "lose" the recording.
 
2013-07-05 01:12:52 PM

Mock26: OregonVet: Yes, the police count as soldiers. I doubt this will turn into a Federal case, but their asses will get handed back to them.

No, they do not count as soldiers.  They count as law enforcement agents.  There is a huge world of difference there.


Geez you're a dumfuk.  Yeah I'm going straight to juvenile name calling, I have no desire to have a conversation with you.
 
2013-07-05 01:34:21 PM

Prince George: Should have called 911 instead of mommy.   "Yeah 911 5 cops are breaking into my house because I don't want to let them use it for a stakeout.  I just need you for a totally awesome recording to use in the lawsuit."


Better yet, that same thing but to News Channel Whateveritisthere.
 
2013-07-05 01:39:00 PM
This is what you can expect for cop blocking.
 
2013-07-05 01:39:06 PM

Silverstaff: 1. There wasn't a clear distinction between soldiers and policemen when Amendment 3 was written, as the militias (or in the Colonial era, the British Army) did routine law enforcement functions.


As I linked before in the thread, no they did not. Colonial law was enforced by groups of deputized men under the local sheriff, or by wardens or constables elected or appointed. It was modeled after what was done in England.

Silverstaff: Since the literal wording of the Amendment specifies "soldiers", are you honestly going to argue they can station Marines, Airmen, Sailors and Coast Guardsmen in people's homes?  Amendment Three doesn't specify "military" it says "soldiers".


Marines, Airmen, Sailors, and Coast Guardsmen are uniformed federal military officers, or members of a State National Guard/Militia. So that would make them Soldiers under the commission of the United States.

Silverstaff: In any case, the police are armed men who represent and enforce the will of the government.  The whole idea of the Third Amendment is to prevent government from placing representatives (especially armed ones who can enforce the will of the government) in your homes and thus violating the sanctity of your homes and your privacy.


They are not soldiers or members of the military or militia by any attempt to define them as such. They fit with the classical definition of the constabulary. You're looking for the 4th Amendment on this one.

Silverstaff: If you're saying this isn't an Amendment 3 violation, why don't we just follow that to it's literal conclusion and say that whenever a police department can't get a warrant for a search on a house, they just demand to use that house for a lookout/stakeout point, and the owners can't refuse so one way or the other the police get in.


Because it ignores the existence of the 4th Amendment, and is a hyperbolic example of a slippery slope, not a "literal conclusion"
 
2013-07-05 02:35:40 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-05 02:41:02 PM

Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.


And Soldiers aren't really fighting "wars", but "police actions" and "military efforts".

Your mindless conformity, even towards a flagrant assault on the Bill of Rights as this has been (wearing a badge does not give them the right to help themselves to your stuff for their own personal use), will not make the cops hate you any less. It's nutless cowards like you who encourage asshole pig behavior like this.
 
2013-07-05 02:42:32 PM

buckeyebrain: Fark Cop Apologists to blame the homeowner in 5... 4... 3...


They're "HAIL ANTS!" types, every one.

dorkshelf.com
 
2013-07-05 02:48:55 PM

wambu: He refused a police order. They put their lives on the line every day to protect him and protect his rights! That day was just not his turn. The ungrateful civilian is lucky to be alive . These cops are [i.imgur.com image 54x11] .


You're the type who would have ratted out Anne Frank and her family in their hiding spot. You know that?
 
2013-07-05 02:58:36 PM

TV's Vinnie: buckeyebrain: Fark Cop Apologists to blame the homeowner in 5... 4... 3...

They're "HAIL ANTS!" types, every one.

[dorkshelf.com image 512x384]


t2.gstatic.com
 
2013-07-05 03:22:25 PM

roadpuppets: Mock26: OregonVet: Yes, the police count as soldiers. I doubt this will turn into a Federal case, but their asses will get handed back to them.

No, they do not count as soldiers.  They count as law enforcement agents.  There is a huge world of difference there.

Geez you're a dumfuk.  Yeah I'm going straight to juvenile name calling, I have no desire to have a conversation with you.


Last time I checked you were not required to join the military in order to become a police officer.  Not only that, but a police officer can quit his job at any time.  Oh yeah, there is also the little known fact are not members of the United States military!  So yeah, the only dumfuk here is you.
 
2013-07-05 03:28:02 PM

TV's Vinnie: Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.

And Soldiers aren't really fighting "wars", but "police actions" and "military efforts".

Your mindless conformity, even towards a flagrant assault on the Bill of Rights as this has been (wearing a badge does not give them the right to help themselves to your stuff for their own personal use), will not make the cops hate you any less. It's nutless cowards like you who encourage asshole pig behavior like this.


Tell me, does it hurt having your head shoved so far up your own ass?  Does it make breathing difficult?  The third amendment is quite clear in that it applies to soldiers.  Let me repeat that word, SOLDIERS.  So, no one's 3rd Amendment rights have been violated.  And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did.
 
2013-07-05 03:53:27 PM

TV's Vinnie: wambu: He refused a police order. They put their lives on the line every day to protect him and protect his rights! That day was just not his turn. The ungrateful civilian is lucky to be alive . These cops are [i.imgur.com image 54x11] .

You're the type who would have ratted out Anne Frank and her family in their hiding spot. You know that?


Humor -- how does that works on FARK?
 
2013-07-05 03:58:28 PM

TV's Vinnie: And Soldiers aren't really fighting "wars", but "police actions" and "military efforts".

Your mindless conformity, even towards a flagrant assault on the Bill of Rights as this has been (wearing a badge does not give them the right to help themselves to your stuff for their own personal use), will not make the cops hate you any less.


All of this has what to do with whether this is a third versus a fourth amendment violation?

TV's Vinnie: It's nutless cowards like you who encourage asshole pig behavior like this.


Who's defended this in this thread, again?

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-05 04:01:00 PM

TV's Vinnie: wambu: He refused a police order. They put their lives on the line every day to protect him and protect his rights! That day was just not his turn. The ungrateful civilian is lucky to be alive . These cops are [i.imgur.com image 54x11] .

You're the type who would have ratted out Anne Frank Helen Keller and her family in their hiding spot. You know that?


Pet peeve.
 
2013-07-05 04:04:06 PM

Mock26: TV's Vinnie: Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.

And Soldiers aren't really fighting "wars", but "police actions" and "military efforts".

Your mindless conformity, even towards a flagrant assault on the Bill of Rights as this has been (wearing a badge does not give them the right to help themselves to your stuff for their own personal use), will not make the cops hate you any less. It's nutless cowards like you who encourage asshole pig behavior like this.

Tell me, does it hurt having your head shoved so far up your own ass?  Does it make breathing difficult?  The third amendment is quite clear in that it applies to soldiers.  Let me repeat that word, SOLDIERS.  So, no one's 3rd Amendment rights have been violated.  And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did.


I hope the government forcibly requires you to bunk a bunch of marines in your home.
 
2013-07-05 04:05:10 PM

OgreMagi: I hope the government forcibly requires you to bunk a bunch of marines in your home.


Well, then he'd have a 3rd Amendment violation, now wouldn't he?
 
2013-07-05 04:08:28 PM

hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: I hope the government forcibly requires you to bunk a bunch of marines in your home.

Well, then he'd have a 3rd Amendment violation, now wouldn't he?


Mock's own words, "Let me repeat that word, SOLDIERS."  What do you think a marine will say if you call him a soldier?
 
2013-07-05 04:12:17 PM

OgreMagi: Mock's own words, "Let me repeat that word, SOLDIERS."  What do you think a marine will say if you call him a soldier?


What he says is irrelevant. He's a commissioned representative of the United States Military, thus fitting the classical definition of soldier that was used in the United States constitution.
 
2013-07-05 04:52:51 PM

Mock26: TV's Vinnie: Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.

And Soldiers aren't really fighting "wars", but "police actions" and "military efforts".

Your mindless conformity, even towards a flagrant assault on the Bill of Rights as this has been (wearing a badge does not give them the right to help themselves to your stuff for their own personal use), will not make the cops hate you any less. It's nutless cowards like you who encourage asshole pig behavior like this.

Tell me, does it hurt having your head shoved so far up your own ass?  Does it make breathing difficult?  The third amendment is quite clear in that it applies to soldiers.  Let me repeat that word, SOLDIERS.  So, no one's 3rd Amendment rights have been violated.  And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did.


So, you have no problem with cops busting down your door, kicking you out, and trashing your home while you stand there helpless?
 
2013-07-05 04:54:06 PM

OgreMagi: Mock26: TV's Vinnie: Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.

And Soldiers aren't really fighting "wars", but "police actions" and "military efforts".

Your mindless conformity, even towards a flagrant assault on the Bill of Rights as this has been (wearing a badge does not give them the right to help themselves to your stuff for their own personal use), will not make the cops hate you any less. It's nutless cowards like you who encourage asshole pig behavior like this.

Tell me, does it hurt having your head shoved so far up your own ass?  Does it make breathing difficult?  The third amendment is quite clear in that it applies to soldiers.  Let me repeat that word, SOLDIERS.  So, no one's 3rd Amendment rights have been violated.  And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did.

I hope the government forcibly requires you to bunk a bunch of marines in your home.


Uh, Marines are soldiers. So as such if the government tried to forcibly require me to house Marines they would in fact be trying to forciblyl require me to house soldiers, and that would be in violation of the 3rd Amendment.  You might want to try picking up a dictionary sometime and actually looking up the word "soldier."  You know, since Intelligence is definitely your dump stat I will look it up for you:

sol·dier
noun

\ˈsōl-jər\
Definition of SOLDIER
1a : one engaged in military service and especially in the army
 b : an enlisted man or woman
 c : a skilled warrior
2: a militant leader, follower, or worker
3a : one of a caste of wingless sterile termites usually differing from workers in larger size and head and long jaws
 b : one of a type of worker ants distinguished by exceptionally large head and jaws
4: one who shirks work

Hmm, pretty damned plain and only willful ignorance could confuse the facts here.  A soldier is someone engaged in military service.  Oh what?  It also says "and especially in the army"?  Yes.  It does say that.  But that does not negate the first part of the definition (the part where it says "one engaged in military service."  All Marines are soldiers.  Same with everyone in the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy.  They are all soldiers.  And while all branches of the military have their own internal police force (called military police) it has nothing to do with civilian police.  State and local police officers are NOT SOLDIERS.  You can call them that all you want but it will not change the facts.
 
2013-07-05 04:56:41 PM

bunner: [i.imgur.com image 500x280]


I guess the best way to handle a street gang is with a rival street gang.
But can a street gang handle a trained terrorist group like the the American police force?
 
2013-07-05 05:06:23 PM

TV's Vinnie: Mock26: TV's Vinnie: Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.

And Soldiers aren't really fighting "wars", but "police actions" and "military efforts".

Your mindless conformity, even towards a flagrant assault on the Bill of Rights as this has been (wearing a badge does not give them the right to help themselves to your stuff for their own personal use), will not make the cops hate you any less. It's nutless cowards like you who encourage asshole pig behavior like this.

Tell me, does it hurt having your head shoved so far up your own ass?  Does it make breathing difficult?  The third amendment is quite clear in that it applies to soldiers.  Let me repeat that word, SOLDIERS.  So, no one's 3rd Amendment rights have been violated.  And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did.

So, you have no problem with cops busting down your door, kicking you out, and trashing your home while you stand there helpless?


That would not be a violation of the 3rd Amendment.  That would be a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Why is it so hard for so many people to see the difference there?
 
2013-07-05 05:10:30 PM

Mock26: OgreMagi: Mock26: TV's Vinnie: Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.

And Soldiers aren't really fighting "wars", but "police actions" and "military efforts".

Your mindless conformity, even towards a flagrant assault on the Bill of Rights as this has been (wearing a badge does not give them the right to help themselves to your stuff for their own personal use), will not make the cops hate you any less. It's nutless cowards like you who encourage asshole pig behavior like this.

Tell me, does it hurt having your head shoved so far up your own ass?  Does it make breathing difficult?  The third amendment is quite clear in that it applies to soldiers.  Let me repeat that word, SOLDIERS.  So, no one's 3rd Amendment rights have been violated.  And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did.

I hope the government forcibly requires you to bunk a bunch of marines in your home.

Uh, Marines are soldiers. So as such if the government tried to forcibly require me to house Marines they would in fact be trying to forciblyl require me to house soldiers, and that would be in violation of the 3rd Amendment.  You might want to try picking up a dictionary sometime and actually looking up the word "soldier."  You know, since Intelligence is definitely your dump stat I will look it up for you:

sol·dier
noun
\ˈsōl-jər\
Definition of SOLDIER
1a : one engaged in military service and especially in the army
 b : an enlisted man or woman
 c : a skilled warrior
2: a militant leader, follower, or worker
3a : one of a caste of wingless sterile termites usually differing from workers in larger size and head and long jaws
 b : one of a type of worker ants distinguished by exceptionally large head and jaws
4: one who shirks work

Hmm, pretty damned plain and only willful ...


And the first amendment very clearly prohibits abridging the freedom of the PRESS.  So you need to step away from the keyboard and stop publishing since you are not a journalist.
 
2013-07-05 05:16:18 PM

TV's Vinnie: Mock26: TV's Vinnie: Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.

And Soldiers aren't really fighting "wars", but "police actions" and "military efforts".

Your mindless conformity, even towards a flagrant assault on the Bill of Rights as this has been (wearing a badge does not give them the right to help themselves to your stuff for their own personal use), will not make the cops hate you any less. It's nutless cowards like you who encourage asshole pig behavior like this.

Tell me, does it hurt having your head shoved so far up your own ass?  Does it make breathing difficult?  The third amendment is quite clear in that it applies to soldiers.  Let me repeat that word, SOLDIERS.  So, no one's 3rd Amendment rights have been violated.  And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did.

So, you have no problem with cops busting down your door, kicking you out, and trashing your home while you stand there helpless?


Out of curiosity, did you even read my post?   Because you seem to have missed the part where I said, "And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did."  And since you have established that your comprehension skills are not all that great I will say this as plain as possible, "I would have a problem with the police coming into my home without a warrant."  Is that plain enough for you?  Or are you going to go all WHARRGARBLE again?
 
2013-07-05 05:18:17 PM
OgreMagi: And the first amendment very clearly prohibits abridging the freedom of the PRESS.  So you need to step away from the keyboard and stop publishing since you are not a journalist.

Well, yeah, if you ignore the other stuff that's in there.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
Displayed 50 of 372 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report