Reverse happened in Michigan. No one seems interested.

Agitators promoting Black Lives Matter blocked a major intersection in Lansing, Michigan, on Friday evening and pointed guns at a motorcyclist who tried to pass through.

I thought this topic was off limits ?

quote:

Originally posted by DennisM: So there's apparently PC, demonstrated to a neutral magistrate, suggesting that a offense was committed....
This isn't an order to round up all the Jews and turn them over for extermination.
This isn't an order to seize guns because of a "state of emergency."
It's an order, from the court, to search a specific place for a specific piece of evidence of a specific offense, one for which there's facial evidence on video.

You don't get to ignore court orders unless they're clearly unlawful (and even then, be ready to bear the heat until you prevail.) Pretty much the same as the military, right? If it turn out that military order WAS lawful, is there a "Yeah, well, I THOUGHT it was unlawful" defense?" I ask that sincerely, because I was never in the armed forces.

Good points. Three replies:
1. “Neutral magistrate” is an assumption on your part.

2. Your second paragraph acknowledges orders which are clearly immoral exist, but assumes the case in question falls below that threshold. Irrelevant to my point. If police officers view their responsibility as executing whatever an authority orders then there is no obstruction to carrying out unconstitutional orders. Not trying to be offensive to police here, but I was shocked at the officers who shut down churches and locked up pastors on the governors orders and also stood by watching rioters take over Seattle. Now they take McCloskey’s means of defending himself. I ask a fair question.

3. Ive known several people elect not to engage after receiving clearance to do so. It’s never been a big deal, just a minor deal.

Slosig,
I’d argue and I believe Thomas Jefferson would back me up, that the law of Mankind - the right to be free - which is the basis of this country and reaffirms the 2nd Amendment as a protection of one’s rights against government interference, supports the notion that no law is just that takes away said right. In other words, no government action can be taken whether a law is passed or not, allowing general confiscation of arms as it’s an inevitable right. Civil disobedience would be expected, demanded even if one swore to uphold the Constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by oldbill123:
Reverse happened in Michigan. No one seems interested.

Agitators promoting Black Lives Matter blocked a major intersection in Lansing, Michigan, on Friday evening and pointed guns at a motorcyclist who tried to pass through.

I thought this topic was off limits ?

The topic is the action taken by the St. Louis City circuit attorney.
Yes, I realize that other topics may be ancillary to the actions of the prosecutor but we are not discussing that here.

quote:

Originally posted by dgshooter:

quote:

Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:

quote:

The only reason it happened is because the cops tasked with this job didn’t tell their superiors to go fuck themselves.

This happened because the duly elected Circuit Attorney for the City of St. Louis sought, and received, a search warrant from a duly appointed judge. The responsibility of the police with respect to warrants is to ensure that the warrant is valid and then execute it as directed.

It is not in their job description to pass judgment on which warrants they will or will not execute. It is certainly not in their job description to tell their superiors to go fuck themselves when they receive a lawful order to execute a valid warrant with which they may disagree.

So I guess it will be ok for police to go door to door confiscating guns when the democrats finally pass the appropriate laws?

It would not be ok, but were the democrats to finally pass the all the appropriate laws, under our system of government, it would be legal. OK and legal are often two different things and shouldn't be confused.

In the McCloskey case, the participants in the legal system essentially know only what they have read or heard in the media as far as the circumstances of what took place. It is therefore reasonable, even if personally unpalatable, to follow lawful orders and allow any disagreements over those orders to be worked out in court.

In the case you posit, the right to bear arms was enshrined in our Bill of Rights by those who founded our country. There is well over 200 years of precedent for legal gun ownership by citizens albeit with an ever-increasing opposition from the left. Should the democrats finally succeed at some point in passing the appropriate laws to outlaw gun ownership for private citizens, it would then be up to individual officers to decide whether or not they wished to remain part of a system which ultimately outlawed what the founders considered an essential right.

quote:

Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:

quote:

Originally posted by dgshooter:

quote:

Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:

quote:

The only reason it happened is because the cops tasked with this job didn’t tell their superiors to go fuck themselves.

This happened because the duly elected Circuit Attorney for the City of St. Louis sought, and received, a search warrant from a duly appointed judge. The responsibility of the police with respect to warrants is to ensure that the warrant is valid and then execute it as directed.

It is not in their job description to pass judgment on which warrants they will or will not execute. It is certainly not in their job description to tell their superiors to go fuck themselves when they receive a lawful order to execute a valid warrant with which they may disagree.

So I guess it will be ok for police to go door to door confiscating guns when the democrats finally pass the appropriate laws?

It would not be ok, but were the democrats to finally pass the all the appropriate laws, under our system of government, it would be legal. OK and legal are often two different things and shouldn't be confused.

In the McCloskey case, the participants in the legal system essentially know only what they have read or heard in the media as far as the circumstances of what took place. It is therefore reasonable, even if personally unpalatable, to follow lawful orders and allow any disagreements over those orders to be worked out in court.

In the case you posit, the right to bear arms was enshrined in our Bill of Rights by those who founded our country. There is well over 200 years of precedent for legal gun ownership by citizens albeit with an ever-increasing opposition from the left. Should the democrats finally succeed at some point in passing the appropriate laws to outlaw gun ownership for private citizens, it would then be up to individual officers to decide whether or not they wished to remain part of a system which ultimately outlawed what the founders considered an essential right.

The Nuremberg trials established that legality is no excuse. The McCloskeys weren't deported to a death camp but the principle is the same. The more truth found in a principle, the more universally it can be applied. Pretty sure the world has universally accepted the conclusions of the Nuremberg trials based on that principle.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:

quote:

The only reason it happened is because the cops tasked with this job didn’t tell their superiors to go fuck themselves.

This happened because the duly elected Circuit Attorney for the City of St. Louis sought, and received, a search warrant from a duly appointed judge. The responsibility of the police with respect to warrants is to ensure that the warrant is valid and then execute it as directed.

It is not in their job description to pass judgment on which warrants they will or will not execute. It is certainly not in their job description to tell their superiors to go fuck themselves when they receive a lawful order to execute a valid warrant with which they may disagree.

Right, FiveFiveSixFan. The police officers who execute a valid warrant should not be castigated.

However, we should all realize that when the SHTF, the police won't be there for us. We are on our own. The police will protect politically important targets, or they will be told to "stand down" but they will not be there to protect the small businesses or the individual homeowners. We have all seen this and it surely changes our perception of how the police are used by their political masters.

I agree with all of what you say, when the SHTF, the police largely won't be there for us. As you know, one of the main reasons the police won't be there for us came from the U.S. Supreme Court in the form of Warren v. District of Columbia.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:

quote:

Originally posted by DennisM: So there's apparently PC, demonstrated to a neutral magistrate, suggesting that a offense was committed....
This isn't an order to round up all the Jews and turn them over for extermination.
This isn't an order to seize guns because of a "state of emergency."
It's an order, from the court, to search a specific place for a specific piece of evidence of a specific offense, one for which there's facial evidence on video.

You don't get to ignore court orders unless they're clearly unlawful (and even then, be ready to bear the heat until you prevail.) Pretty much the same as the military, right? If it turn out that military order WAS lawful, is there a "Yeah, well, I THOUGHT it was unlawful" defense?" I ask that sincerely, because I was never in the armed forces.

Good points. Three replies:
1. “Neutral magistrate” is an assumption on your part.

2. Your second paragraph acknowledges orders which are clearly immoral exist, but assumes the case in question falls below that threshold. Irrelevant to my point. If police officers view their responsibility as executing whatever an authority orders then there is no obstruction to carrying out unconstitutional orders. Not trying to be offensive to police here, but I was shocked at the officers who shut down churches and locked up pastors on the governors orders and also stood by watching rioters take over Seattle. Now they take McCloskey’s means of defending himself. I ask a fair question.

3. Ive known several people elect not to engage after receiving clearance to do so. It’s never been a big deal, just a minor deal.

If I don't have a basis for believing that the warrant is clearly defective-- illegal or unconstitutional-- I have an obligation to execute it.

200+ years of case law define what is, or isn't, an "unreasonable search or seizure" under the 4th amendment.

If I *don't* have information that suggests the warrant wasn't premised on probable cause for a specific offense, that it wasn't issued by a judge with lawful authority to issue it, or that it wasn't specific as to the place that was searched or the items(s) seized-- in other words, that the search and seizure doesn't comport with the 4th Amendment's requirements--then my obligation is to execute the warrant.

This is not a difficult concept. You execute warrants that are facially valid and which are directed to you. You don't violate established Constitutional rights. You well and faithfully execute your duties.

Can you please point to a single sentence in my reply to you which suggests that I view my responsibility as as "executing whatever an authority orders?"

quote:

Warren v. District of Columbia.

It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent.

Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:

quote:

Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:

quote:

The only reason it happened is because the cops tasked with this job didn’t tell their superiors to go fuck themselves.

It is not in their job description to pass judgment on which warrants they will or will not execute. It is certainly not in their job description to tell their superiors to go fuck themselves when they receive a lawful order to execute a valid warrant with which they may disagree.

Help me understand— you’re saying as long as you are ordered to do it, you’re doing it. Is this correct?

It’s very different in the military; I’m taught from day one to refuse immoral or unethical orders, and ultimately I’m personally responsible for the orders I execute and the consequences of how I execute. It seems you have a totally different philosophical approach in law enforcement... that so long as someone with authority gives you an order it’s not in your job description to disobey?

Not intending to be disrespectful. I don’t know anything about LEO and just want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly.

No disrespect taken. It's a great question. I'm not saying that the mere fact that you are ordered to do/not do something by a superior means that you should unquestioningly obey. I'm saying that in the overall scheme of things, executing search warrants is a common, everyday aspect of law enforcement which has parameters established which are fairly clear. What is to be searched for, when and where the search is to take place and other details are included in a search warrant. What is often not part of the search warrant is the why. The why is known to the party bringing the case. This information is presented to the party responsible for prosecuting the case who then determines if sufficient legal grounds exist. If the prosecutor feels that there are sufficient grounds, the application will go to a judge for approval. If approved by a judge, the warrant is issued and given to the police for execution.

Given the above process, how should a cop who merely shows up for work one day and gets tasked with executing a search warrant be reasonably expected to refuse to do so? If all of the requirements for a valid search warrant are present, what are his grounds for such a refusal? If there is a clear defect in the warrant, that's another story but to the best of my knowledge, that has not been alleged in this case.

Good cops refuse to obey unlawful orders on a daily basis, often to their own personal detriment. Executing a valid search warrant, drawn up and issued under established legal principles, would not seem to rise to the level of an unlawful order.

quote:

Originally posted by DennisM:

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:

quote:

Originally posted by DennisM: So there's apparently PC, demonstrated to a neutral magistrate, suggesting that a offense was committed....
This isn't an order to round up all the Jews and turn them over for extermination.
This isn't an order to seize guns because of a "state of emergency."
It's an order, from the court, to search a specific place for a specific piece of evidence of a specific offense, one for which there's facial evidence on video.

You don't get to ignore court orders unless they're clearly unlawful (and even then, be ready to bear the heat until you prevail.) Pretty much the same as the military, right? If it turn out that military order WAS lawful, is there a "Yeah, well, I THOUGHT it was unlawful" defense?" I ask that sincerely, because I was never in the armed forces.

Good points. Three replies:
1. “Neutral magistrate” is an assumption on your part.

2. Your second paragraph acknowledges orders which are clearly immoral exist, but assumes the case in question falls below that threshold. Irrelevant to my point. If police officers view their responsibility as executing whatever an authority orders then there is no obstruction to carrying out unconstitutional orders. Not trying to be offensive to police here, but I was shocked at the officers who shut down churches and locked up pastors on the governors orders and also stood by watching rioters take over Seattle. Now they take McCloskey’s means of defending himself. I ask a fair question.

3. Ive known several people elect not to engage after receiving clearance to do so. It’s never been a big deal, just a minor deal.

If I don't have a basis for believing that the warrant is clearly defective-- illegal or unconstitutional-- I have an obligation to execute it.

200+ years of case law define what is, or isn't, an "unreasonable search or seizure" under the 4th amendment.

If I *don't* have information that suggests the warrant wasn't premised on probable cause for a specific offense, that it wasn't issued by a judge with lawful authority to issue it, or that it wasn't specific as to the place that was searched or the items(s) seized-- in other words, that the search and seizure doesn't comport with the 4th Amendment's requirements--then my obligation is to execute the warrant.

This is not a difficult concept. You execute warrants that are facially valid and which are directed to you. You don't violate established Constitutional rights. You well and faithfully execute your duties.

Can you please point to a single sentence in my reply to you which suggests that I view my responsibility as as "executing whatever an authority orders?"

You're spot on, but these feckless demagogues that falsely promote themselves as "leaders" do have the power to use or misuse law enforcement for their own devices. Disarming these homeowners of the ability to protect themselves from an angry mob (encouraged by these same politicians through inaction), is akin to crossburnings and lynchings of blacks in the South, following the Civil War.

While law enforcement may not have a specific obligation to "protect" all citizens in it's jurisdiction, this sort of deliberate indifference to known threats is exactly one of the reasons the 2nd Amendment is so pertinent. I'm hoping these victims have other firearms (unrelated to those seized as potential evidence in this specific incident) that they can or will use if necessary in the future. If I was a neighbor and saw these people being threatened, I'd gladly provide them with the tools necessary to defend themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

Yes, private property, but it wasn't remotely the "storming of the Bastille" that McCloskey claimed

Have you seen this picture?

This appears to be 'evidence' of a crime committed....But we haven't heard any reporting re: the rather apparent PC, or ANY efforts otherwise to secure 'warrants' in order to prosecute this crime!

Why, yes I have seen that picture. It's not remotely representative of the storming of the Bastille, however, in which a crowd of a thousand civilians, mingled with army regulars and police, and five cannons, laid seige to a fortress with over 30,000 guns and cannons, and dragged the warden into the streets to be stabbed (after he kicked a cook in the groin).

I've also seen the picture of the two nitwits standing outside their home pointing pistols at each other and a few people holding signs. Go figure.

This is roughly the equivalent of the argument over open carry or concealed, best summed up as playing one's cards close to one's vest. When in a convenience stoor that's robbed, is it the little old lady in the crinoline dress that gets shot first, or the guy with the high point in his velcro holster with his back to the door, wearing the shoot-me-first tactical pants and the tee shirt that says "You can take my gun from my cold, dead, hands?" You know the answer, whether you'll admit it or not, because it's obvious.

If one defends one's house and is outnumbered, or is facing a situation that is potential, cover is king, as is concealment. Running outside where one could be stabbed, shot, stoned, or taken, and waving around a firearm when one doesn't know the first thing about the firearm or how to handle it, on camera, looking like a scared dog, clearly without the ability to use the weapon or defend with it, is the epitome not of bravery, but stupidity.

At this point, that doesn't matter much, because they did it, except for the naked recognition of the basic fact that what they did was stupid and destructive. Yes, they were at first blush legally in the right on their own property (though the legality of their action has yet to be determined), and yes, the protesters were in the wrong. There's no disputing that the protesters were on the wrong side of the legal fence. That does not alter the simple fact that what the McCloskey's did was unwise, unwarranted, unprofessional, provocative, outlandish, theater, weak, and pathetic. The best they could have hoped for was to give two guns to an angry crowd, but they didn't have an angry crowd, and they weren't stormed, and there was no bastille. They didn't scare anyone off, and they didn't actually defend. The crowd laughed at them. Well done, McCloskeys.

The real question here is that of the warrant service and whatever may follow. A legal warrant was served, and had the two ambulance chasers taken any other action (filming the protesters, for example), it's very possible that warrants might have been served on those entering the property illegally (as opposed to to having been filmed patheticly brandishing firearms and putting each other at risk by pointing guns at each other).

Commit a potential crime with a firearm, the firearm will be taken in many cases, as potential evidence, until the investigation is complete. We all know that. There are even those who suggest they carry a cheap firearm in the event it's confiscated if they have to shoot someone. We know it's going to be taken for evidence, pending the outcome of an investigation. We can be little surprised, in this case, when the firearm is taken for evidence.

Outrage will be warranted if it's not returned, assuming no charges are pressed against McCloskey. Rather than cross that bridge before we get to it, we need wait and see. Outrage presently, is a bit premature.

The gate alone, resulting from a mob no less, ought to be enough to have justified firing.

What should they have done, waited until the mob breached the bedroom door or something?

The crowd is lucky they didn't get fired upon.

The rest is bullshit. Give the guns back, now, drop all charges, and fuck right off with everything else.

Not sure about the law in MO regarding "Brandishing a Firearm in a Threatening Manner", but even in California, the corpus of the crime specifically includes the words: "except in self defense..." I doubt 12 jurors would vote to convict given the circumstances reviewed as a whole, but I'm sure that's of little comfort to the family that would have to pay the legal bills, even if fully acquitted.

This is obviously political grandstanding by the DA, pandering for votes / support.

The DA has essentially no 'skin in the game' and can do this just because they want to.

They won't be convicted and likely won't even go to trial if they are charged with something, but they'll waste a ton of time / money defending themselves both in and out of the courtroom.

quote:

The DA has essentially no 'skin in the game' and can do this just because they want to.

They won't be convicted and likely won't even go to trial if they are charged with something, but they'll waste a ton of time / money defending themselves both in and out of the courtroom.

And that's my problem with the government, from bottom to top.

Doesn't matter if it bankrupts you, takes your time and money, and destroys you emotionally. There's absolutely zero consequence on the other side.

That should change.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

Why, yes I have seen that picture. It's not remotely representative of the storming of the Bastille, however...

Good grief.



.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
Help me understand— you’re saying as long as you are ordered to do it, you’re doing it. Is this correct?

It’s very different in the military; I’m taught from day one to refuse immoral or unethical orders, and ultimately I’m personally responsible for the orders I execute and the consequences of how I execute.

Wait. Which military did you join? I was in the US Navy and they did not care one whit what I may think is immoral or unethical. The only justification I had for refusing to follow an order is if it’s unlawful, belayed, or will otherwise result in unintended damage to property or people.

That DA isn t pandering for votes.
Sbe is actively and defiantly advancing tbe revolution.
The transformation of America.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

The DA has essentially no 'skin in the game' and can do this just because they want to.

They won't be convicted and likely won't even go to trial if they are charged with something, but they'll waste a ton of time / money defending themselves both in and out of the courtroom.

And that's my problem with the government, from bottom to top.

Doesn't matter if it bankrupts you, takes your time and money, and destroys you emotionally. There's absolutely zero consequence on the other side.

That should change.

Yes, and from the President and his associates all the way down we've seen people prosecuted simply because they hold the wrong political views, in the eyes of the prosecutor.

When you look at what they've done to Gen. Flynn you realize they can do it to anyone who gets on their bad side. Without consequence.