I’ll never forget the pain etched in their faces.
I’ll never forget the screams, the haunting pleas of mothers at faceless soldiers.
I’ll never forget the National Guard on rooftops, and Humvee patrols in an American city. The long lines of riot police, the frustration on the faces of young men.
I’ll never forget the resilience of a battle-worn community. I‘ll never forget the prayer circles, hopeful speech, and the unity, democrats and republicans, libertarians and socialists, standing side by side in the face of oppression.
Once a sleepy suburb of St. Louis, and now America’s warzone, Ferguson Missouri jumped into the headlines after protests over the shooting of a teenager sparked a militarized police response. Because over two years ago, I founded PANDA to prevent this very thing from happening, we have specifically banned 7 jurisdictions from being battlefields, and I needed to see if I could put my talents forward to help the community recover, I went to Ferguson. I was there for two weeks, and here are 20 things I learned living on America’s battlefield:
1. It was not about public safety, it was about officer safety.
When the Pentagon’s 1033 program to give surplus Department of Defense Equipment to local police and sheriffs’ departments started, the argument was to protect the public from drugs and terror attacks. In fact, in the 1997 National Defense Authorization Act that birthed the program, it was placed under “Subtitle C–Counter-Drug Activities” and gives preference to “those applications indicating that the transferred property will be used in the counter-drug or counter-terrorism activities of the recipient agency.
Those excuses are notably missing from the law enforcement leadership in Ferguson.
Not only did heavily armed tactical teams point sniper rifles at protesters in a daytime protest, but after a relatively peaceful Tuesday night, the Missouri Highway Patrol, in control since the previous Thursday, made it clear why the police looked like an occupying army.
“Officer safety is number one.”
-MHP Captain Ron Johnson
Officer safety was. Rights were a nice bonus.
2. The “rules” can be changed at will, for whatever reason
When I arrived in the parking lot of a burned out QuikTrip, the epicenter of the Ferguson protests, on August 16th, the 1st amendment was respected. People were allowed to roam freely, and the atmosphere took on a kind of jovial attitude.
Then, at 3pm, MO Gov. Jay Nixon held a press conference announcing a midnight curfew. Within the next couple of hours, people had to make a decision whether or not to stay after midnight, for no other reason than to break the curfew. Protest leaders made the community aware of the cutoff time and the risks. Still, this happened:
The next night was another midnight curfew, yet the police attacked at 930 PM, gassing several women and children who thought the protest was still “legal” at that hour. In fact, since the National Guard had now been moved in, no one was even allowed in the large parking lot near the police command center after an arbitrary hour of night. The day after that, at 1030 AM, police told everyone around the QuikTrip to keep moving or be arrested. You could stay here, you just had to keep moving. Then, they completely shut the Quiktrip parking lot down (with no authorization from the owner), telling us to leave or be arrested, and removing the main protest gathering place. Later in the day, most of the street was shut down.
The next day, police established an “Approve Assembly Area [sic]” toward the opposite end of W. Florissant that the QuikTrip was on. We had to gather there, or be arrested.
Except then it wasn’t, because the next few nights you could walk around the streets of Ferguson, you just had to keep moving. I stopped once to update the livestream on my phone, and was threatened with arrest if I didn’t keep moving because “you’re filming.”
That doesn’t even touch on the checkpoints. Police set up checkpoints at the each end of W. Florissant, where they were checking driver ID’s. If you were not a resident, you didn’t get in (and sometimes, didn’t get out).
3. Just 4 miles away, it was as if nothing had ever happened.
Probably one of the most shocking things to me was just how isolated the violence was, both physically and in the minds of the people who lived nearby. I remember going into a St. Louis pizza shop on August 17th for a local style pizza (St. Louis style is like eating cheese and sauce on a cracker, not something I’d recommend), and talking to the clerk there. Similar to many locals, he described it as if it were happening in another country, instead of his own backyard.
In fact, save for just one city, you would not have known anything different was going on traveling throughout the entire St. Louis area. Life went on, and not even with a change of pace. Only four blocks away, there were no protesters at all. Many locals from surrounding towns even defended the police actions, or didn’t find them to be concerning enough for more than dinner conversation.
It makes me more sure than ever that we cannot force change at a Federal level. It must be in our towns, in our communities, and in our counties, or, odds are, no one would ever notice.
4. The “liberty movement” was almost nonexistent.
For all the lip service given to the militarization of the country, and the prospect of an emerging police state, when it became reality and there was a tangible, workable resistance to it, the liberty movement was nowhere to be found.
The most obvious comparison, as pointed out continuously to me by people on the ground, is the Bundy Ranch situation. There was an over militarized response by Federal law enforcement, with the Obama administration even considering using military force, and liberty groups flocked there to show support, whether online or in person. PANDA even had people in the background, watching the situation closely. So where are they on Ferguson?:
Tea Party Patriots – Not a word.
National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, and National Association for Gun Rights – Not a word.
Tea Party Express – published a blog post trivializing the events.
Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association – not so much as a statement. EDIT: I was just informed that there was a CSPOA Board Member on the ground, and they plan on releasing a resolution/statement soon.
Constitutional “militias” – Though a post on facebook seemed to imply that the Missouri Militia would show up, they did not.
FOX News – Spent hours of programming demonizing the protesters as “looters” and “violent” while defending police tactics.
Liberty News and Eric Odom – Wondered if martial law was okay, no one on the ground.
In short, for whatever reason, when federal officials showed up on a rancher’s property in Nevada, shouts of liberty and a second American revolution were abundant. All arguments were about a police state coming to America, and how we need to stand together when liberty is threatened. In Ferguson, where there has been more than just a standoff, but hundreds of protesters have been injured, that same movement seemed to forget their mission.
5. However, a few consistent liberty people showed up:
While I dare the groups above to look, hard, at their own principles and question why they are not consistent, there were a few liberty movement groups who definitely did show up, and deserve a lot of credit. INFOWARS coverage of the protests was incredible. Copblock and Wecopwatch not only sent people on the ground, but are outfitting over 100 residents with body cameras. The Missouri Oath Keepers not only sent several people on the ground with me, but issued a warning letter to MO Governor Nixon over his tactics. The Patriot Coalition was on the ground as well. Derrick Broze of the Conscious Resistance flew down to report. Even Ron Paul and Campaign for Liberty, though they had no one on the ground, focused on Ferguson in several statements.
Those who talk, and those who act, were separated in Ferguson. And though those who acted could be fit in a couple of large hotel rooms, we took advantage of the greatest opportunity to spread liberty we have gotten to date. Those who did not, showed their true colors.
6. Everyone pitched in in their own way.
Protests create the greatest spontaneous innovation, as people, without instruction, take their places in the chaos. The first few nights of protests left W. Florissant trashed, so every morning a small group of residents would bring whatever they had, brooms, dustpans, trash bags, and help clean up the area. By Wednesday morning, hundreds of residents had joined in. Dozens of residents and even a few organizations, including St. Louis Food not Bombs and Disciples for Justice, were handing out free food, water, and sign making supplies to protesters. Several protesters kept criminals from looting, even shoving agitators attempting to throw bricks and rocks.
One of the groups of people seemingly forgotten though, were the local business owners. The weeks of protesting on their main street, not to mention the looting and destruction, had hurt them pretty badly So when a friend of mine in the area told me the St. Louis Tea Party would be organizing a “BuyCott,” I said “a what?”
Turns out, a “Buycott” is the opposite of a boycott, when people go to a certain area just to buy things and help them recover. The tea party followed through, and sent nearly 50 members to Ferguson to help the local businesses, and community, recover.
7. Militarized equipment makes officers less safe.
Though the main argument for handing excess militarized equipment to local police was terrorism and the drug war, we have seen it shift to officer safety. An Indiana Sheriff who recently acquired an Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle noted “My job is to make sure my employees go home safe,” and Walton County, FL Sheriff Mike Adkinson echoed that sentiment saying “I know that if somebody was in harm’s way, I wouldn’t let public opinion decide the safety of my deputy,” further noting “Safety is my number one priority.”
Officer safety is the number one reason for this equipment, and yet my experience in Ferguson showed, me at least, that in practice it does just the opposite. Nearly every resident I talked to said there would be peace in that suburb if the police backed off. I witnessed a bit of a confrontation between a major ball star (could not tell where he was from, nor did local news help) who had visited Ferguson and was known by several young men, and one of the young men in the crowd. I’ll paraphrase what I remember:
Ball star: Now, I know you’re angry, but have to be calm. We have to talk to the police, to get that conversation going.
Young man “You say to talk to the police, but it’s a two way street. When they have that mask on, there’s no talking, they ain’t a man. I gotta talk to them man to man, and it’s a two way street.” (walks away, taking crowd with him)
I spoke to another young man with a rose in his hand and a bandanna over his face, and confronted him about that contradiction. I asked him “why both?” He told me the rose was for peace. He wanted peace, and it was up to the police to back down and create that peace. “However,” he told me as he slid the bandanna over his face, “if they want war…we’re prepared for war.”
An M4 makes sense to protect an officer from gunfire, just as an MRAP makes sense to protect them from an IED. But that equipment is meant for a foreign battlefield. Instead, as I saw personally in Ferguson, this equipment gives officers the mentality of being in a warzone…and they treat their citizens like enemy combatants on that battlefield.
If that’s the country you want, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria are nice this time of year.
In America right now, many people still look to the police as a peaceful, necessary, and helpful force in their community. They don’t want to confront an officer, don’t see them as a threat, and don’t see them as the enemy.
Something changes when the officers look like an occupying army. Something changes when those officers fear their people so much that they act to protect themselves rather than to protect and serve.
As they turn from peacekeepers to occupiers, their people turn from employers to enemies. Instead of keeping the peace, they ignite a resistance, a resistance that makes officers significantly less safe.
When a young man by the name of Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, Missouri, people were angry, but mourning. There were holding a memorial for one of their own. The protesters that did show up were chanting “Hands up, don’t shoot,” “No justice, no peace,” and “We are Mike Brown.” On that night, according to several witnesses I interviewed, the police brought APCs, K-9 teams, and riot squads. They continued this militarized response, ramping it up to point sniper rifles at daytime protesters, for the next two weeks.
In contrast, when a young man was killed in the city of St. Louis just a week after Michael Brown was shot, I arrived to a crowd chanting “Hands up, Shoot back!” instead of “Hands up, don’t shoot!” The protesters I interviewed there all threatened or agreed with violence, one man even told me “This was now war.” Several young men jumped in the air in a group huddle screaming “Shoot back!” Shoot back!” with fingers in the shape of guns in the air.
The atmosphere was so tense that I was concerned enough for my safety to call a cab out of there. Yet police showed up to speak to the crowd, in their standard uniforms, with name badges and identification. No riot police, armored vehicles, or K-9 units. Even with significantly more violent rhetoric from the crowd, there were no large protests in St. Louis. There were no police officers shot at or killed because of the incident. The St. Louis Police Department, that day, viewed their people, though angry, as people. Not the enemy.
Only the Ferguson approach resulted in officers taking live fire.
When the world is a battlefield, whether it is our military or militarized police enforcing that idea, America is not safer. When our law enforcement view their people as the enemy, and their job as protecting the officer, neither us, nor an officer, is safer. It’s time this equipment, and the mentality that comes with it, is laid to rest.
Stay tuned for Part II.
Dan Johnson is the Founder and National Director of People Against the NDAA. Invite him to speak to your group here: https://alternetmedia.com/panda/aboutus/contactus/
FYI: You may want to correct your rendition of “W. Florrisant” to the proper “W. Florissant” throughout your article, especially since you mention a typo on the part of the police and you are writing about being there yourself. It goes to credibility.
sock puppet or just someone trying to sound smart. Cops write legal Docs. they have to be correct. What do you have against honest people, giving an honest account ?? SOCK PUPPET ?
I have nothing against them, in fact. I suggested an editorial change that would make this essay stronger. It’s called constructive criticism.
And here I thought I was doing well… Thank you for the heads-up though. I appreciate it.
When people loot, burn down and destroy private property and threaten public safety…….
What do you suggest?
That the police stops hiring looters.
Holding the officer accountable for his actions, and behaving as though you have a sincere interest in justice. Rather than looking like you’re trying to cover-up for that officer.
How would that work for you?
There are protesters and there are looters, my friend. You know the differnece. None of them were doing anything to warrant being shot at with chemicals that are banned in war (chemical weapons act). I would have thrown the gas back to, but I would have had on a gas mask. What do I suggest? Stop shooting first and asking questions later. Hire police officers that are actually capable of handling a firearm without firing it 11 times. The police ARE the aggressors. I do not agree with looting, but those are not protestors, they are criminals. But the actions of a few shouldn’t apply to everyone, as the police were clearly doing in this situation.
You left out ‘To protect and serve’ means the citizens. Cops are payed enough that they can handle a little scratch or mess up their ‘kiss my bosses ass uniform’ once in a while. Just consider me a gentile whistle blower….I know things. Sadly we now have two WHITE witnesses that will add credibility, i say sad, because it took a white guy like me to add credibility to everyone else’s statements. As it goes, the Cop has not much to worry about, except KARMA and that’s a MF.
Two witnesses to add credibility to who’s defense? Also, St louis country trained along side Israeli police, in Israel. Who only have enemies.
Mike’s….. interesting, on their training, it explains so much !
In the logic of discussion, “but” is the universal negation: With your “I do not agree with looting, but . . . .”, the “but” negating the antecedent, in all logic, then, you do agree with looting, . . . and could be expected to do a little looting, yourself.
Of course, we all know “where you’re at”, and “where you’re comin’ from”, so yes, that is not how you intended to be understood, . . . the upshot being, you’re at least a distant relative of Confucius, . . . maybe we should call you Confus-ed, . . .
Way to take a quote out of context. He was clearly differentiating between legal protesters and criminal looters. Logic, it seems, is not your forte.
Actually, to show what the writer intended, “I do not agree with looting, but those are not protestors . . . .”, should have apprehended both clauses with a continuing interjection, thus obviating the felt need of the “but” as a conjunction; and also, the indicated tense will stand correct, both, thus: “Although I do not agree with looting, those *were* not protestors . . . .”, . . . Y’need some book-larnin’, Pal.
But, hey, y’jus’ keep on a thinkin’ and a’writin’ just as y’have been a’doin’, . . . ’cause, yer posts are rully cool, . . .
No need to be so pedantic. After all, this a public forum. Chock full of typos and grammatical errors. Still, for the most part, reasonable people get the gist of the conversation. I’m sure there are few bonafide grammarians on these boards. Colloquial dialog is more than adequate. No need to be so pompous about it.
“No need to be so pedantic.”?
That would be nice, except that—as in most of these FRONT PAGE articles—in consideration and debate of momentous topics, most usually, the comment’s composers wish to draw grave and accurate conclusions, . . . all of which requires a best use of language, . . . and, how could it be otherwise?
Run on much?
I see where you’re comin’ from, . . .
Don’t shoot unarmed men with their hands in the air, because God gave you a big brain by mistake as just a spine would surly suffice … THINK MAN !
Well, as a beginning to the discussion, “What are the arguments against looters being ‘shot on sight’ “?
Thank you for being there and for writing such an informative and insightful article. I’m looking forward to part 2.
You have got to be kidding that you would have expected Tea Party Patriots, or the NRA to get involved? That would be an endorsement of the ridiculous “someone opened the cages at the zoo” like behavior of the people of Ferguson. No legitimate organization is going to embrace and condone the actions of people that prefer to burn and loot their own town, than to demand action in a civilized manner. Get over yourself.
When these people actually learn to act like civilized human beings, they will get a lot farther in their struggle. Also, No legitimate organization is going to rush in a be seen standing shoulder to shoulder with race baiters like Sharpton and Jackson….. That town screwed itself when it did not send those guys packing the minute they showed up…. America is actually waking up. The race card is just not as effective when you throw it down at the drop of a hat…… Crying wolf comes to mind here…
Civilized human beings don’t murder unarmed citizens.
No doubt, you reference the “unarmed teenager” who was killed, . . . except, the video shows Michael Brown to have two arms, and using his hands, arms, and muscle in effect to be a weapon in furtherance of his goal to get the 50$ box of cigars without paying for it. Michael Brown was without a firearm, . . . and thus left to use only his arms, . . . in terms of a weapon, plainly, he was “armed”.
God made men, guns made men equal….the police have the advantage and a badge. Murder is not equal force, face it, the Cop was scared of the big guy .. what a sissy, I thought they hire strong men who understand how to defend themselves from a teenager of any size ! NO GAS, NO TASER, NO BATON busted ! just deep hatred, obviously !
you give an example of the lack of logic in which your mind attempts to think: “scared of the big guy .. what a sissy,”, . . . a sensible and appropriate regard for superior strength in a conflicted circumstance is hardly correctly assumed to be any shame.
And in all—for all that is known of Michael Brown—wouldn’t you agree that, that community—or wherever he might have gone and continued in development as a thug—is better off without him?
I recall witnesses claiming those “two arms” were raised in the universally recognized gesture of surrender, as he was crying out “Don’t shoot”. And it seems to me the coroner’s report supports this.– Four of the bullet wounds were to the INSIDE of Michael Brown’s right arm and hand. Confirming that his hands and arms were in the supinated position (palms forward) as though his arms were raised in the position of surrender.
Plainly, the thrust of your argument is in favor of Michael Brown’s life, and is the kind of thing–surrender–which thugs, cons, and abusers of all sorts are smart enough to think of and make use of.
But which I think, deserves hard entertainment because, Michael Brown also, was one of those, a burgeoning thug, and not ashamed to employ his might and main in violence in support of wrongful ends, . . . Also to be noticed is that, in the soft-toned picture now being circulated, the composer has chopped off the remainder which shows Michael Brown “flipping off” the larger viewing Society.
1) Officer Wilson had no knowledge of Michael Brown’s alleged crime at the time of his confrontation.
2) There were no powder burns on Michael Brown’s clothing. Supporting witnesses who claim he was shot a distance of 30 to 40 ft. So it seems Officer Wilson’s safety was not an issue.
3) It seems that it is Officer Wilson who employed violence, and lethal violence to achieve his end.
4) I haven’t seen the picture you claim is circulating but i will note that Officer Wilson supporters had circulated phony pictures of him (Officer Wilson) being treated in a hospital for a (bogus) broken eye socket.
5) It is the court’s responsibility to determine the guilt of a suspect. It is not the prerogative of an arresting officer to arrogate that responsibility and assume a suspect is worthy of death.
As appears, in the nonsense of a mere moral equivalence, you have picked out the impossible task of defending the memory of Michael Brown, but through destruction of the character of Officer Wilson, . . . except, of course, thus far, while Michael Brown’s is deeply tarnished, Officer Wilson’s is immaculate.
1) For whatever Michael Brown was, or whatever the memory of Michael Brown can be made to be, Officer Wilson’s knowledge at the time of death, or just before, has nothing whatever to do with the difference between the price of oolong in Berlin and Cairo, . . . in a word, in the logic of discussion, for that which is of concern, Officer Wilson’s knowledge doesn’t bear mentioning.
3) “it is” and “employed” confound tenses—the author appears as confused; as for the use of “seems”, in the logic of language—and as our poet laureate has stated: “Things are not as they seem.”.
The thrust of your 3) would be to have relieved Michael Brown of culpability for use of force, by having it lay to the Officer’s account, . . . which, confused and impossible as it is, the Officer is hired to use force, first to adjudge appropriateness, and then, act or not act, accordingly, . . . culpability—if any—to be pointed out by a superior officer and then, by a grand jury—y’need some book-larnin’, Buddy, . . .
5) ”It is not the prerogative of an arresting officer to arrogate that responsibility to himself, and . . . .”?
I don’t know, . . . I guess, . . . if you suppose yourself to be addressing say, a 6th grade class, . . . that bit of knowledge would then be useful, . . .
As for “worthy of death”, wouldn’t you agree that, however they might die or otherwise be gotten rid of, concerning people who do as Michael Brown was wont to do, the nation—and indeed, each and every community—is far better off without him and them, . . . think about it, what if you had a store, and one of the Hell’s Angels decided to go in and muscle out with whatever he chose?
I have not picked any impossible task here. You, however, have earned the distinction of defending the cold blooded cowardly murderer of an unarmed man, then couching the murderer in the terms of someone who has performed so “valuable” a service to humanity as disposing of the equivalent of some plague carrying vermin. It is now impossible to tell who is the more despicable in your pathetic recasting of Michael Brown’s execution. — The officer who may have shot him out of a sense of misplaced fear — Or the pathetic worshiper and apologist for the abuse of state sponsored power falsely casting itself in the role as a protector of, what you seem to view, as the more “worthy” members of society, and at the same time dismissing the murder of an 18 yr old kid whom you seem to be casting as a not worthy of life.
————-
If the best you can do is try to mount some criticism of a use of language which doesn’t suit your personal taste you obviously have no argument.
It’s kind of comical — “I have not . . . . You, however, have”, for your side, you have reduced the discussion to: “I have not.”, “Yes you have.”.
And, your: “the cold blooded cowardly murderer”?
As appears, you hold yourself up as some kind of judge, though not at all in reliance upon the logic of discussion, nor also, upon common sense logic for continuance of community life, . . . oh, well, . . .
And, yes, our police forces, even as throughout the empire, the Romans were often and much despised, . . . that is, until they began pulling the troops back from the provinces. Then, as rule of law, mail service, roads, education, and the success and prosperity and so forth began to fail, all, with the onset of criminal dominance, much petition was made to the Senate. But, . . . as you might know—but probably not—by the strongest and baddest among them, Europe was then divided up into feudal estates, the Roman law in exodus thus ushering in the Dark Ages which were to last for centuries.
In his criminal record, and in the video of the robbery, it was not I, but rather, was it Michael Brown who did cast himself as the villain.
And yes, of course, the sooner the better, that, Society can be rid of vermin who abuse their physical power as did Michael Brown — “an 18 yr old kid, . . . what a laugh! Michael Brown thought nothing of using his might and main against an adult, and in furtherance of his criminal activity.
“As appears, you hold yourself up as some kind of judge, though not at
all in reliance upon the logic of discussion, nor also, upon common
sense logic for continuance of community life, . . . oh, well, . . .”
— Was Officer Wilson’s safety ever at risk? If so, please supply supporting evidence
“Was Officer Wilson’s safety ever at risk?”?
Plainly, I don’t know, . . . that would a thing for judicial bodies to speak to.
But however such as that is to be, today, and yesterday, and for the foreseeable future, what can be said in favor of long consideration of Michael Brown? And from what I have thus far been made aware of, . . . there appears to be nothing, . . . does his mother say: “He was always such a good boy.”?
So far as is now known, Michael Brown was a thug, a thug in active development, . . .
I will say this much. Your double standard cannot be missed. On the one hand you are more than willing to grant a murderer his opportunity to judicial review. On the other hand – you express satisfaction that an unarmed man in the act of surrendering was murdered by a police officer with no knowledge whatsoever of his victim’s history.
“He who claims equity must come with clean hands.”: Given Michael Brown’s legal history—even the little bit which I have been made aware of—Michael Brown is worthy of powerful small consideration. This, in distinction to the officer’s record—if, as we are informed—which is exemplary.
And again, except in terms of judicial determination, whatever the officer knew or, did not know, hardly bears mention—but so many bloggers are dead-set on their own ideas of judicial determination that, they are unable to see beyond to the only valid present argument: “Who are we in consideration of?”, . . . none but Michael Brown, just another thug.
In the video, robbery of the convenience store, Michael Brown’s physique was his weapon—he was thus “armed”. And yet, not the space of a half hour later, in surrender, he was not “armed”, he was in that moment, unarmed. In the two views then, and given his criminal past, logically, he is to be taken as of that kind of miscreant who will use meekness as a mere ploy for survival—Michael Brown was a thug, and what might be the logic adverted to which can show otherwise?
You only exacerbate your double standards and your dishonesty.
You claim to be a lover of law and order. Yet when a person for whom you express a personal distaste is denied the law and order you reserve for yourself, you dismiss his loss – even his loss of life. He was not armed at the time of the alleged robbery. Nor was he armed at any point during that day. You contrive new definitions accepted only by yourself – as you champion a murderer. By your reasoning, Arnold Schwarzenegger would pose a mortal threat to the safety of anyone confronting him.
..Please recall – at the time of Officer Wilson’s confrontation of the young Michael Brown he knew nothing of Michael’s history, nor of any alleged events which may have just transpired.
“exacerbate” is properly used in connection with an effect.
I don’t claim to love Law and order; rather, it is simply something to be relied upon.
Yes, I found Michael Brown to be distasteful, . . . due process concerning that of which he was a part is now in occurrence.
As can be seen in the video of the robbery, in his physique which he used in furtherance of crime he was “armed”. And yes, trained fighters can be registered in their hands and whatnot as being “armed”; that is not my definition, it is rather, of lawful devise.
While I’m not Officer Wilson’s champion—until otherwise informed—I do accept the news of his exemplary record as a true report.
And no, unless he acts in wrongful violence, Arnold Schwarzenegger is not a registerable natural “armed” fighter—he was a body-builder, only.
Disjointed though they be, while your arguments would center on thrust against Officer Wilson, the arguments which I advance say only that, because he was a thug, Michael Brown’s life and death is worthy of only slight consideration.
You lying fuck. You claim to love law and order when it’s for yourself.
Quote:
..”thank G0D for the firm hand in which the Oklahoma City Police Dept. does
what they can to maintain the fear of G0D and the law over the
criminals, . . . Here, the laws now allow business owners to defend with
deadly force, . . . you’ve probably heard about the flash mobs,
ransacking stores, . . . well, those news reports are not about
occurrences in Oklahoma.”
————————————–
” Arnold Schwarzenegger is not a registerable natural “armed” fighter—he was a body-builder, only.”
— What you mean is, Arnold is white.
I remind you again, Officer Wilson knew NOTHING of Michael Brown at the time of their confrontation.
—————————————
“you attack me because I don’t agree with you that, Officer Wilson is a murderer,”
— I attack you because you’re arguments are inconsistent and transparently nonsensical. You contrive definitions which no one else in the world uses. You express a personal objection to my use of language which has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand. You have been incapable of mounting a cogent argument in defense of your position, and instead have repeatedly tried to change the subject. Such as with your interjection of some “soft photos” of Michael. Your position is indefensible. —- Michael Brown was in the act of SURRENDERING when he was gunned down by Darren Wilson.
You are trying very hard, but it will not sway me. I worked before retiring for a large inner city Police Dept.
I will tell you a wee secret; AMERICA BREEDS THUGS INEQUALITY DAH !! I know you guys were just doing your job. Mike was trying to show the police how much contempt people have for the them nowadays, and that gets you shot !!!
I think that, Michael Brown was not trying to show the police how much contempt people have for the them, but was simply pursuing his own ends concerning the box of cigars.
It must be very hard and sad for you to live your life in perpetual fear.
“life in perpetual fear.”?
Well, I don’t know, tell me, . . . tell me what I should live in fear of, . . .
I avoid the minds of Sheeple !
. . . . me, too!
My remark wasn’t addressed to you, so i’m not sure why you think i would be trying to “sway” you.
===================
“Mike was trying to show the police how much contempt people have for the them nowadays, and that gets you shot !!!”
– 1) I don’t think there is any evidence of that.
2) I guess that’s ok in your book..? Someone expressing their contempt for police is now grounds for executing them? Right off-hand i would say that you may have put your finger on what you are identifying as a “problem”. Eg. that police are viewed with such contempt. If my neighbor shot me because i looked at him as a contemptible piece of shit — That would be ok?
I think that, Michael Brown was not trying to show contempt, but was simply pursuing his own ends
concerning the box of cigars.
I haven’t mentioned contempt.
What has an unarmed man being executed while in the act of surrendering to do with a box of cigars?
If your question was not clipped, it wouldn’t need answering, . . . that particular unarmed man being shot and killed, and the box of cigars, are parts of a larger picture
And, “I haven’t mentioned contempt.”?
“Mike was trying to show the police how much contempt people have for the them nowadays,”, you didn’t write that?
Since i have no idea of what this “larger picture” could be, i can’t agree that it has been “pretty well threshed out”.
I have a question for you though, Phillip, regarding your contention that Michael Brown’s execution was justified on the grounds that he was a thug in the making.
If Wilson *had* known exactly who Michael Brown was, and had been aware of an alleged cigar robbery – and had just reviewed Michael’s rap sheet prior to pulling the trigger ELEVEN times. Would Wilson have been justified in executing him while he (Michael) was in the act of surrendering?
And you have no idea? Are y’playin’ stupid on us? But however that might be, someone else may be reading these things, so, . . . the larger picture includes things such as the participants’ performance records in the community; time lapse between the strong-arm robbery and the killing; was Michael Brown reaching inside the patrol car? and so on, . . . regarding your query concerning my opinion of justification summary or executive punishment, one advantage of exercises in legal due process is that, it helps to keep the skills of the attorneys in best form. Was Michael Brown surrendering? Although he was, inthat, he committed his robbery not a half-hour previous, the robbery and the surrender were conjoined in time, making the surrender to appear as in the category of likely ploy used by criminals when suddenly and unexpectedly faced with overwhelming opposition.
If Officer Wilson is found to have been not justified, still and all, punishment against him will rely upon his exemplary record. Wilson’s record?
And Michael Brown’s record? Thus far as known, it stands against him as being not at all a blessing to his community, but rather, an active
curse, and deserving of but slight consideration.
Should Officer Wilson be found to have been in error, at least, the mistake wasn’t the error of depriving the community of a helper of mankind by having killed a good individual, . . .
“Should Officer Wilson be found to have been in error, at least, the
mistake wasn’t the error of depriving the community of a helper of
mankind by having ended the life of a good individual, . . . How much
latitude should be allowed the criminal type? I don’t know.”
— For a person claiming not to know you certainly give every appearance of having made up your mind, Phillip.
====================
And this ex-drug dealer acquaintance of yours– How many years of drug dealing passed before he decided to change his ways? Would you say it’s safe to say that he was more than a few years beyond the age of 18? An age Michael Brown will never reach because he was gunned down by a policeman while posing no threat to him.
====================
“making the surrender to appear as in the category of likely ploy used by
criminals when suddenly and unexpectedly faced with overwhelming
opposition.”
— Is there a credible place this opinion exists other than your imagination?
“is there a credible place . . . ?”?
Well, yes, gamesmanship is active throughout every endeavor in life, and probably, than in the life’s activities of any typical ‘con’, nowhere more.
As was presented, comparison between the age and doings of Michael Brown and the ex-drug dealer, would be a mere arbitrary—and hence—useless exercise—one time, I feel asleep at the wheel, and knocked out a post, . . . what sense could there be in comparing that to the journeys of those who drove on by me? Think up a sensible question, . . .
“having a made up mind”?
Well, plainly, the known history of Michael Brown’s doings preclude any lengthy consideration of the value of his life. And equally and to an opposite end is the known history of Officer Wilson, . . . it’s all a rather simple treatment in logic, . . . Is there any sense or reason in thinking against common logic? Did Officer Wilson lose his temper? While that I cannot know, still and all, none of this Ferguson affair is any part of some deep Cabalistic mystery. As appears to my mind, the very worst which could be said, is that, while hired to use force, or to not use force, Officer Wilson wrongfully killed a community bad guy, . . . so, let them deal with it, . . .
No one has introduced the notion of a “Cabalistic mystery” other than you, Phillip. Why you would try introducing this under the topic of “logic” (your word) makes no sense whatsoever.
So, here you seem to take issue with the idea you’ve made up your mind while at the same time reinforcing the idea that you simply couldn’t care less that a man surrendering to police was executed by them. But while you express your disdain for Michael Brown you let off the hook your ex-drug dealer acquaintance with the rationale that, Michael’s history was contained in a searchable database, while your drug dealer friend’s ADMITTED history is not.
It is a sensible question, Phillip. But obviously one you would rather not answer.
=======================
“Well, yes, gamesmanship is active throughout every endeavor in life, and
probably, than in the life’s activities of any typical ‘con’, nowhere
more.”
— IOW, you’re declining to identify a place where your flight of fantasy can be double-checked. Forgive me, Phillip, i am unfamiliar with the “gamesmanship” employed by an unarmed man attempting to surrender to a uniformed person wielding and employing the use of lethal force. What were the circumstances in your personal where you were exposed to this behavior?
“IOW”?
Looks like IOW may be an interesting acronym, . . . maybe, for some deep mystery, . . . though certainly, to speak no more of Cabalistic mysteries.
“What were the circumstances in [my] personal experience in which. . . .”?
Well, beside many other cons of a more brief encounter, while in PDX, I spent about a year with Fred Kinney (now dead), known to the Portland Police and to Channel 12 News as a con; I have dealt with several child sexual predators, and of course, no shortage of religious cons. Lois Lerner is a con, . . . Obama’s appointment are cons, all.
And yes, for the reasons and logic before presented, within the hour of his robbery and hand-to-hand tussle through the police car window, probably—and, already sustaining gunshots—Michael Brown had then thought to switch to his meek mode—and no fault attributed there, but only to note that, that switch was, of course, in complete variance of display of character to that which manifested in his grabbing and shoving the store guy.
And, “Why do [I] think that Michael Brown would not likewise change his ways?”?
Well, except for explanation of a gambler’s sense of odds, I have no basis or other way to form an opinion on the question, . . . and, in considering the gravity and permanence of someone’s death, a gambler’s odds are not appropriate for idle-time discussion.
“disdain for Michael Brown”?
Yes, to my way of thinking, the matter of Michael Brown against Ferguson, Missouri has been through triage, . . . probably, there’s nothing more to consider, . . . certainly, knowing that, Michael Brown was in the neighborhood, no decent and knowledgeable individual could feel safe, . . .
“Let off the hook”?
About the only thing which I know is that, 1) than an ADMITTED history or recount of events, third party evidence is worthy of much esteem; and 2) so long as he stays away from criminality, the ex-dealer pretty much guarantees to himself that, he won’t go to prison, and that, he won’t get blasted by the police, . . . his future is within the power of his own hand, . . . may he use it wisely, . . .
“IOW”?
— “In Other Words”
If one simply googles IOW the very first hit that comes up is from the Urban Dictionary. It is defined and explained there – complete with an example. No need to pretend there is a “Cabalistic Mystery” whatsoever. It is a common internet abbreviation.
=============
“Well, beside many other cons of a more brief encounter, while in PDX, I
spent about a year with Fred Kinney (now dead), known to the Portland
Police and to Channel 12 News as a con; I have dealt with several child
sexual predators, and of course, no shortage of religious cons. Lois
Lerner is a con, . . . Obama’s appointment are cons, all.”
— My question was. Where did you see this particular form of “gamesmanship” used, Phillip. Where did you see an unarmed man pretending to surrender to an armed policeman (or any person). Then using that as a ploy to gain some advantage? I don’t see anything in your reply that has addressed my question. Though you’ve danced all around it.
Four times in my life i’ve had guns held on me, and i can tell you. Your vulnerability to the simple twitch of a finger is foremost in your mind and very acute.
I think your concern of a ploy being used under these circumstances is a product of too time in front of a TV.
===============
“And, “Why do [I] think that Michael Brown would not likewise change his ways?”?
Well,
except for explanation of a gambler’s sense of odds, I have no basis or
other way to form an opinion on the question, . . . and, in considering
the gravity and permanence of someone’s death, a gambler’s odds are not
appropriate for idle-time discussion.”
— IOW, you have no reason? (Note: “IOW” = in other words)
Your belief about a man you’ve come to know only through the media tells you he was not likely to change his ways, and was therefor worthy of death? Unlike your far more worthy drug dealer friend.
===============
“certainly, knowing that, Michael Brown was in the neighborhood, no decent and knowledgeable individual could feel safe, . . .”
— So, anyone who didn’t feel threatened by Michael, is, by your definition – Not a decent person? That would include Michael’s friends, and probably most of the community i suppose? Either way you seem indifferent to short changing him.
===============
“About the only thing which I know is that, 1) than an ADMITTED history
or recount of events, third party evidence is worthy of much esteem;”
— Either you’re assuming Michael Brown never admitted his history. Or you’re not giving him the same credit you bestow upon your drug dealer friend.
————————-
“and
2) so long as he stays away from criminality, the ex-dealer pretty much
guarantees to himself that, he won’t go to prison, and that, he won’t
get blasted by the police, . . . his future is within the power of his
own hand, . . . may he use it wisely, . . .”
— I wonder how many years your drug dealer friend did not use his freedom wisely?
I’m future oriented, . . . and so is Joseph; I don’t wonder about how many years he did not wisely use his time, . . .
In a long discussion, I could show how your statements and queries are geared to wrench argumentative thrusts from mere, inventions; but, . . .
“That would include Michael’s friends,”?
Because their basic character originates things which are destructive of Society, to be correct, criminals are not properly spoken of as having friends, but only associates; and to reiterate, because criminal tendencies are non-discriminatory as to persons, but will attack anyone.
“worthy of death?”?
Except in simplistic contemplation in the weak minds of the unlearned, present considerations concerning the death of Michael Brown to not turn upon worthiness for death, but only upon the facts which show that, Michael Brown put himself in place and position in which death was active—Michael Brown was a thug. In a word, don’t rob, lie, cheat or steal, don’t oppose police officers in violence, have nothing to do with drugs, don’t mess around with criminal activity; at nightfall try to be home; if a crown is protesting, keep yourself apart; if you want to protest, draft court documents; don’t walk alone at night; if you travel two in a car, police are less likely to stop your car, . . . and on, and on, . . . think ahead and do what you can to keep yourself out of harm’s way, . . .
“I’m future oriented, . . . and so is Joseph; I don’t wonder about how many years he did not wisely use his time, . . .”
— I thought my point was obvious, but i guess not. The point i was getting at was- Michael Brown’s (cut short) early years are probably not much different than Joseph’s years.
———————-
“In a long discussion, I could show how your statements and queries are
geared to wrench argumentative thrusts from mere, inventions; but, . . .”
— No you couldn’t. But you will make the claim anyway knowing that it would take “a longer discussion”, that apparently will never happen, to “prove” your unfounded accusation.
=============
“Because their basic character originates things which are destructive of
Society,”
— You know the “basic character” of Michael Brown’s friends now? How is that?
———————-
“to be correct, criminals are not properly spoken of as having
friends, but only associates; and to reiterate, because criminal
tendencies are non-discriminatory as to persons, but will attack anyone.”
— But in your mind those tendencies seem far more likely to attack the friends (“associates”) of people such as Michael Brown.
===============
“Except in simplistic contemplation in the weak minds of the unlearned,
present considerations concerning the death of Michael Brown to not turn
upon worthiness for death, but only upon the facts which show that,
Michael Brown put himself in place and position in which death was
active”
— Here what you said only a few hours ago:
..”Well, plainly, the known history of Michael Brown’s doings preclude any lengthy consideration of the value of his life.”
=================
— (presented without comment):
“Michael Brown was a thug. In a word, don’t rob, lie, cheat or steal,
don’t oppose police officers in violence, have nothing to do with drugs,
don’t mess around with criminal activity; at nightfall try to be home;
if a crown is protesting, keep yourself apart; if you want to protest,
draft court documents; don’t walk alone at night; if you travel two in a
car, police are less likely to stop your car, . . . and on, and on, . .
. think ahead and do what you can to keep yourself out of harm’s way, .”
. .
“Because their basic character originates . . . .”
Because in that statement of the general rule, “their” refers to criminal types in general, to take that and turn it to personal challenge against me, ignoring or entirely missing the utility of the rule the while, is but one of the several argumentative thrusts which usually adorn your attempts at discussion, . . .
But hey, let’s take things which almost anyone can discuss—do you play an instrument? What is a song which you like?
“Because in that statement of the general rule, “their” refers to
criminal types in general, to take that and turn it to personal
challenge against me, ignoring or entirely missing the utility of the
rule the while, is but one of the several argumentative thrusts which
usually adorn your attempts at discussion, . . .”
— Except you’re argument seems to be assuming all Michael Brown’s friends would be criminals.
“all Michael Brown’s friends”?
Because it is to have failed to have applied the rule, generally, as in: “If the shoe fits, wear it.”, and: “Birds of a feather flock together.”, therefrom, your “all” is an argumentative addition; and yet, all the while, later on, you take the general rule: “But because kids are considered not so culpable as adults, than adults, generally, we treat juveniles differently.”, to your side, . . . the contrast between treatment of the elements of my presentation and those of yours, betraying an argumentative disposition in personality.
“unsympathetic”, and “unconcerned”?
You could be a lawyer, . . . but, you wish to get touchy-feely over a death, except that, you have Michael Brown as “murdered”, . . . and, with that and more, and continuing to belabor my ex-dealer buddy, to engage in common sense discussion as ours has been hoped for, you manifest as just too biased, . . .
“totally unconcerned that Michael Brown”?
As before, I mentioned, I would say, Michael Brown has done been through triage, and for whatever might have been in some novel composed in hypotheticals, in the here-and-now he shows up as, . . . a thug, . . . and the general probability being that, that condition would have worsened.
“their formative years”?
Scientists now tell us that, throughout life, we can turn genes off and on, changing our IQ and personality; so, . . . strive to be a better person, . . .
“—except in the minds of people like you.”?
Because the dash means that, what follows is an addition to the sentence, the letter following, is not to be capitalized, . . . Then, in the nature of things, than a simple argumentative disposition, your conclusory allegation is of course, far worse.
“Here is what Snopes says:”
In a law court, the documentation which Snopes references may be worth something, . . .
“so eager to act”?
You’re confusing yourself in words: had I been eager to act, I would have gone to Ferguson, . . . to my mind, it’s simply a news story which “came up”. And, no, . . . murder is never justifiable.
“had Michael Brown not been a black person.”?
Kind of tragically comical, . . . the kind of thing which appears in the opposition when they have “run out of gas”, . . . we can hope, you’re not married, . . . That argumentative spirit feeds its victims nothing really useable, . . . just circumlocution, hyperbole, conclusory allegation and accusation, and so much in sing-song shrieks, . . . and, you’re all in—aren’t ya’? Remember this, if you choose something for yourself, which is outside the bounds of The Lord’s will, and you wake up dead, . . . don’t blame G0D because on that occasion He did not extend mercy, . . . G0D doesn’t owe anyone anything.
Here, in Oklahoma City, I serve in a Black Church, . . . Sunday mornings, beginning at about 7:00 am, we set up to serve a breakfast for the inner-city down-and-outers, . . . not a toast and coffee kind of Continental Breakfast, but a real man-sized meal, . . . SW 6th and Walker, FOUNTAIN OF FAITH, . . . easy to find, . . . I’ll hope to see you there, . . .
“Because it is to have failed to have applied the rule, generally, as in: “If the shoe fits, wear it.””
— You haven’t shown that the shoe fits. You don’t even know these people, yet you will cast your scurrilous accusations at them (people of whom you know nothing). Now why on earth would any rational person try to make this argument.
===========
” and yet, all the while, later on, you take the general rule: “But
because kids are considered not so culpable as adults, than adults,
generally, we treat juveniles differently.””
–Only an idiot would try to make the argument that general rules are invalid. I am not arguing against general rules, Genius. It is YOU who came up with the general statement categorizing the friends (or “associates” of Michael Brown) Quoting you:
“Because in that statement of the general rule, “their” refers to criminal types in general,”
I GUESS that’s a general rule, but it’s one you made up and is recognized by no one other than yourself. It is completely unfair and you offer nothing to support your fabricated generalization. The general rule i’m recognizing is also recognized by most people who study developmental psychology, by most people in the criminal justice system. And probably even by you, Phillip. Unless you believe that the understanding of little kids is no different than the understanding of adults and their ability to assess long term consequences.
==============
“You could be a lawyer, . . . but, you wish to get touchy-feely over a
death, except that, you have Michael Brown as “murdered”, . . . and,
with that and more, and continuing to belabor my ex-dealer buddy, to
engage in common sense discussion as ours has been hoped for, you
manifest as just too biased, . . .”
— It is you who is maintaining that Michael Brown’s murder was justified because he was “armed”– by virtue of the anatomical fact that he, like nearly everyone else on the planet, had two arms, Philip. I am not the one who is biased here.
===============
“Scientists now tell us that, throughout life, we can turn genes off and
on, changing our IQ and personality; so, . . . strive to be a better
person, . . .”
— That’s not what they say. Turning off and on genes in the manner you are describing is due to epigenetic factors. No scientist i have heard, or read, has said that we can turn off and on our genes as a matter of will. ….strive to be a black person or Chinese if you believe your own bullshit.
===============
“You’re confusing yourself in words: had I been eager to act, I would
have gone to Ferguson, . . . to my mind, it’s simply a news story which
“came up”. And, no, . . . murder is never justifiable.”
— Unless they’re scaring looking and have two arms and legs. Here is what you said in response to the comment that- civilized human beings don’t kill unarmed citizens. Quoting you:
..”No doubt, you reference the “unarmed teenager” who was killed, . . .
except, the video shows Michael Brown to have two arms, and using his
hands, arms, and muscle in effect to be a weapon in furtherance of his
goal to get the box of cigars without paying for it. Michael Brown was
without a firearm, . . . and thus left to use only his arms, . . . in
terms of a weapon, plainly, he was “armed”.”
——–
Here is what you said about those voicing their objections to Michael’s murder:
..”Ask yourself: “Would any decent person wish to see his
appearance standing in support of a common thug, or with a gang of
looters?”
———
———
” And, no, . . . murder is never justifiable”.
— But it seems that not even you believe your rhetoric, Philip. For you have said, Michael Brown is dead because he was a thug. Quoting you:
..”In the larger picture, Michael Brown is not now dead—as did
occur—because he robbed for a box of cigars, nor, for jay-walking, but
because he was a thug, and as such, possessed little or nothing within
himself which was to have kept him out of harm’s way—robbing,
conflicting with the police, and no doubt, if we only knew, much more
beside, . . . Y’need some book-larnin’, Pal, . . .”
But as i have pointed out. Officer Wilson knew nothing about Michael at the time of their encounter. So, who is the thug here? The dead person, or the person who murdered him?
And you go on to imply that if only we knew more about Michael his thuggery would only be more evident. But, why wouldn’t that also be true of Officer Wilson? Yet you don’t ask that question.
===============
“Kind of tragically comical, . . . the kind of thing which appears in the opposition when they have “run out of gas”, . . . blah,blah,blah
–But as you can see, i haven’t at all “run out of gas”. I saved this remark for the end of a long list of comments i made about your remarks which don’t add up, are inconsistent, and are outright self contradictory.
as in: ” If the shoe fits, wear it.’ “?
I roam the net looking for humor, . . . and you definitely qualify:
Your intended criticism is in ignorance of the “as”, “as in”, . . . the “as” points a thinking mind to another part of a forthcoming comparison, . . . “If the shoe . . . . ” is simply an example of a bromide in general use and general application, . . . I would marvel to know that, someone doesn’t need to tell you, “Don’t think to wear every pair of shoes, simply because they fit.”, . . . you are too much, . . . however, I’ve dealt with it for decades, . . . showing a wife and children how to best make their arguments, . . . but, we didn’t use words such as “idiot” or, “stupid”, . . . nor, conclusory accusation and personal invective, . . . you need special training, . . .
I am not at all surprised that you neglected to address any of your inconsistencies, and any of your contradictions. And if you’re going imply that a shoe fits — You still have to show that it does. No matter how much it inconveniences you. Apparently you are unable.
“that, a shoe fits”?
Y’know what?
You argue like an untrained or badly trained woman, . . . And, I don’t know how the shoe would fit the murder of Michael Brown, . . . but still and all, you have some skill in putting words in the mouth of the other party to the discussion, please tell me what you would have me to say, . . . because, yes, apparently, I am unable, . . .
And i will note that you still have not substantiated your claim implying there is a shoe that fits.
“You argue like an untrained or badly trained woman”
— At least you don’t seem to restrict your bigotry.
The shoe fits bromide is of individual or unique application, . . . it’s for you to decide.
To your mind, to eschew impoliteness or otherwise bad company is bigotry? And to you that makes sense?
I’ve decided it doesn’t fit. That’s the reason i’m calling on you to justify that it does.
“That’s the reason . . . .”?
M-m-m, . .. no, . . . I think, rather, . . . m-m-m, . . . I’m kind of wondering whether you aren’t just a useless time-waster, . . .
IOW (IOW = in other words) You’re unable this shoe you claim fits?
“M-m-m,
. .. no, . . . I think, rather, . . . m-m-m, . . . I’m kind of
wondering whether you aren’t just a useless time-waster, . . .”
— Maybe you’re just lonely, and need conversation.
To reiterate, in order to help you understand something of the logical use of dividing between criminal associations and friends—a rule of general understanding and application—I gave two examples of unrelated general rules: “the shoe fits”, and one other which I do not now recall.
But more to dire needs, to my mind, the pressing concern of the moment has to do with the keen awareness that, I may be running out of the TOLL HOUSE dark chocolate drops, . . . nutritionists tell us that, each day, we should eat 3oz. of dark C. I don’t know just how much of a handful 3oz. is, but, I try to make sure and, . . . well, . . . without my being too graphic, . . . surely you can surmise something of my predicament, . . . and yes, it’s probably too bad that, the dead guy won’t have any more chocolate, but, to make a successful life, a sufficient number of people in the community have to work toward that end, . . . Obviously, the dead guy had bad associations, . . . but let’s not boo, hoo, hoo, over spilled milk; tomorrow’s a new day, and no doubt, there will be plenty of news and space for reasonable comment, . . . see ya’ there!
“To reiterate, in order to help you understand something of the logical
use of dividing between criminal associations and friends—a rule of
general understanding and application”
— Which of Michael Brown’s friends or “associates” were criminals?
“Which ones”?
Are y’playin’ stupid on us just t’entertain a pore, lonely ol’ wheelchair bound veteran? An’ isn’t that jus’ so sweet? Or, has an an intelligent woman as yourself never run across the usual storyline for early development of the criminal personality, . . . which is, . . . through association with older kids—in school, or, in detention centers—whose character is already bent in more advanced ways in anti-social behavior and tendencies?
And, if you’d go to Ferguson, spending in an investigative endeavor, no doubt but that, you’d come up with the names, dates, and places, . . . and wouldn’t you agree?
I assumed you must have some inside information. YOU were the person with the accusations, charging Michael Brown’s friends and “associates” of being criminals and being undesirable. So, i ask you again – WHO are they?
“And, if you’d go to Ferguson, spending in an investigative endeavor, no
doubt but that, you’d come up with the names, dates, and places, . . .
and wouldn’t you agree?”
— You are the person leveling the accusations. The burden of proof lies with you.
Are able to apprehend the logic in use of language, which provides us with a distinction between a friend and an associate inthat, criminal tendencies in the one are non-discriminating, such that, arising in the individual, often, they will cause him to plot against another, who was to have been the first party’s friend? And herefrom, criminal types have little or no scruple or compunction which might have kept them from stealing from say, or, tricking each other, . . . So, . . . again I ask, are you able understand this line of logic? And if you are so able, why then also, you are able to perceive how that, use of such logic is sensibly, not at all to be confused with leveling of an accusation?
Of course, if you are so able of mind, you’ll be able to see why your final question here, is thus precluded the necessity of an answer.
And not to be exclusive, if you are not so able, well, I also, am beset with certain disabilities, and last night, I spent some time reading and studying the comments to a best ribs recipe—I know you like BBQ ribs, . . . maybe we can discuss do’s and don’ts in cooking, . . .
But also, I left you this: “http://bit.ly/XLmS9p”, . . . if you feel a need to get worked up over a truly innocent death, . . .
I’m feeling like i just walked in on another person’s conversation. Can you restate that.
I’m feeling like I know where you’re coming from, . . . if you’ve spent a woman’s career chasing a bunch of kids and ducks, say, that is also to understand that, that was time in which you were not reading grammarians, and law, and so forth, . . . Say, how about if you make something to eat—whatever you like—I’ll go practice the piano, and you can call me when lunch is on? Would that be a little bit of okay?
And, if you tell me what you wish to prove, I’ll show you some best ways of doing it except, at least until the grand jury finishes, I can’t speak concerning Officer Wilson as murderer, . . . I know you feel really strongly about that, . . . okay?
If this is meant to clarify your previous comment, it doesn’t.
============================
“And, if you tell me what you wish to prove, I’ll show you some best ways
of doing it except, at least until the grand jury finishes, I can’t
speak concerning Officer Wilson as murderer, . . . I know you feel
really strongly about that, . . . okay?”
— I’m getting the sense that you believe OJ is innocent, Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein are naive little innocents who had nothing to do with the financial meltdown, LAPD’s beating of Rodney King was justified, and officers of the Fullerton Police Dept are not guilty of murdering Kelly Thomas.
Okay, but, at least look at the news piece—will ya’?
I assume you have some evidence of Michael plotting against his associates, or friends. Or evidence of his friends plotting against him?
“evidence”?
But of course, . . . it’s in the strength of the logic, . . . But however plain and open to a reasoning mind that, that may be, you’re confusing yourself: “evidence of his friends plotting against him?”, . . . By the simplest understanding of the use of definitions, friends don’t plot evil against friends, and simply because they can’t. And therein, your confusion proves the distinctions in definition, . . . if whomsoever was plotting evil against Michael Brown, why then, in no rendering in common sense of the matter could they have been friends to him — right? But they were something to him—weren’t they? And, in separation from “friend”, the word for such a relationship which apprehends recognition of derived harm, is “associates”. You can understand that—can’t you?
The only thing then remaining of that which you desired, are the names of those associates, . . . and for this, you’ll just have to go Ferguson, and find out, . . .
“Strength of logic” is not evidence, Girlfriend.
“logic is not evidence”?
Like I say, I search the net for humor, and you definitely qualify, . . . big-time, . . .
Y’need some book-larnin’, Sister, . . . in law, . . . and in the logic of discussion, . . .
And, I don’t know just where: “Girlfriend” would fit in, . . . but, . . . whatever, . . .
Apparently “logic” is not sufficient evidence for you, Phillip. You would have me go to Ferguson to get the evidence.
Again, you confuse yourself: The logic of it all is evidence which shows that, Michael Brown was overcome of bad associations, . . . getting the names of those associates would simply be to complete the picture by attaching, . . . labels. The local court know that, Michael Brown was beset about with criminal associates, and no doubt, they know the names of at least some of them, . . .
My wife—of about 30 years—also grew up in a deprived environment; but however that might have been, not as yourself was she resistant to understanding and knowledge: When I informed her that, people who hurt each other but stay in association with each other are not called “friends”, but rather, “associates” or “criminal associates” — and many other things of like common sense definition, she merely nodded or else, nodded and presented a “Thank you”. And you are not a special case in that way, . . . there are so very many others also, who are of a stubborn pig-headed cant, . . .
I’m not confused, Phillip. Basing your view of the world and its workings on a single acquaintance cannot help but render a skewed understanding of the world. It matters not at all that the acquaintance was your wife.
“Again, you confuse yourself: The logic of it all is evidence which
shows that, Michael Brown was overcome of bad associations, . . .
getting the names of those associates would simply be to complete the
picture by attaching, . . . labels”
— I said your evidence was INSUFFICIENT, even for yourself. And you’ve confirmed that it is.
“I’m not confused”?
You’re so comical, . . . Have you never heard referenced that, most often, the typical nut case will offer self-declaration for affirmation of his sanity?
“on a single acquaintance”?
Again, I just had t’laugh, . . . it was just an example, one of many which could have been adverted to, and you take that and for you, that concludes the entire matter, . . . What a hoot!
“I said . . . .”?
Yes, you said, and well, I guess that’s it, . . . there we have it, . . . that settles it, . . . except, like Obumma or any typical politician, saying it’s so doesn’t make it so—or, does it, . . . am I nuts? Tell me I’m not nuts, . . .
But to travel to a different vein, for instant example, if you watch the singing / performing idol shows, all mankind wants some unknown to be a winner, and partly because, it becomes a thing by which even the weakest and least among us is encouraged to achieve, . . . Michael Brown was not—and, could not be—a decent example for any child, . . . not yours, . . . nor, anyone else’s, . . . For what little of him we know, . . . he’s gone, . . . and, . . . so what, . . . in any possible benefit or ennobling influence to others in his neighborhood, as appears, his life was lost, . . . a l-l-l-o-o-ong time back, . . . Although you much desire your view of life to be truth and logic, . . . for the whole world, if as I suppose, . . . I, for one, just don’t envision that occurring, . . . as ideologically not too far from that which the Occupy Wall Street folks wished for, . . . it just ain’t happenin’, . . . not now, . . . not ever, . . . but don’t give up a losing battle, . . . you just might be right!
G0D Bless, . . . I would say, you sure need it, . . .
Once again you have no argument, Phillip. Only more diversion. This time referencing “Obumma”, “performing idol shows”, my children – Michael Brown’s potential children, some muddled reference to “nut case[s], and implying i’m more in need of “G0D’S” blessing than you or anyone else.
Do try to stay on topic.
==========================
“his life was lost, . . . a l-l-l-o-o-ong time back”
— and you “know” this how? He had barely turned 18yrs old.
“and how do I know this?”?
Well, I feel fairly certain that, at barely 18ys, Michael Brown did not just then suddenly begin robbing convenience stores, and strong-arming adults around, . . . But, you’re rully smart, what would your safe bet on the matter be?
No. How do you know his life was lost? I will once again refer you to Joseph, your drug dealer friend.
“How do [I] know his life was lost?”
“lost”?
Sofar as being a blessing in Society, if you are dealing drugs and robbing convenience stores say, well, you are a lost soul, . . . Your resistance and obstinate mind-set makes you also, appear as a lost soul, . . . how you became as you are, occurred a long time ago, . . .
How do you know- “his life was lost, . . . a l-l-l-o-o-ong time back”. I refer you once again to your drug dealer friend, Joseph, who changed his ways.
“his life was lost, . . . a l-l-l-o-o-ong time back”?
C’mon lady, . . . is any guy brought up through childhood, a choir boy, . . . to awake on his 18th birthday with the thought: “H-m-m, . . . I think, today’s the day for me to begin taking drugs and robbing convenience stores.”?
Or, rather, is the personality development an incremental thing, . . . His Holy Spirit knocking on the door of the heart, knocking, knocking, . . . all day long, . . . and Michael Brown—or someone like—continually responding in the negative?
So, how is it that, I know?
By knowledge of the human condition, . . . and simple logic. That’s how I know, . . . and you do, too.
And yet your friend, Joseph, changed his ways.
Yes, . . . astounding, . . . puzzling, . . . but then too, the Scripture says: “All His works were finished from the beginning.”, and: “Before the foundation of the world, I knew you.”, and: “You have not [first] chosen Me, but rather, I chose you.”, . . . and: “Shall the pot say to the potter: ‘Why have you done thus?’ “, . . .
So, Joseph was chosen but Michael wasn’t chosen coz he was killed?
What if as he was dying, Michael Brown prayed that G0D would save his soul?
What’s this have to do with answering my question of your use of the scriptures you quoted?
M-m-m-m, . . . okay, I give up, . . . what? Could I have another question?
For you interest in Michael Brown, racism, and Ferguson, today, FRONTPAGE MAG has this article: “The Cause of Black Violence in Ferguson Schools”, . . .
http://bit.ly/XLmS9p
The relevance to the case of Michael Brown is lost on me. You’ll have to help me out.
“maintaining that, because Michael Brown was “armed”, the murder of him was therein justified — and simply by virtue of the anatomical fact that, like nearly everyone else on the planet, he also . . . .”?
In discussion, you have your common sense to dictate meaning in context: Plainly, in the act of surrender, Michael Brown was not armed, but only in his strong-arm robbery, . . . physique does not “arm” us, but only makes it possible for us to “arm” ourselves—as for evil purpose, . . .
Here, you use “Genius” in the way of personal insult, . . . that’s a no, no, . .
“In discussion, you have your common sense to dictate meaning in context:
Plainly, in the act of surrender, Michael Brown was not armed, but
only in his strong-arm robbery, . . .”
— An alleged strong-arm robber, which i have pointed out 3 or 4 times was unknown to Officer Wilson ’till well AFTER Michael’s fatal encounter with him.
“we can turn off and on our genes”, “your own bullshit.”?
I thought that, maybe, I’d again look up that web site, but, you show yourself to be familiar with and comfortable in unclean thought processes, . . . and yes, when bad people have run through their scant supply of decent thought, but to resort to base expressions, and unclean, they have no other choice, . . . that’s so far as I can go with you, . . . oh, well, . . .
By all means… PRETTY PLEASE, look up your website and tell us what it says about a person’s ability to change the expression of their genes.
Do you have any evidence that any of this has any rational explanation…..Go F off !
You will have to tell me your definition of “this” before i can answer that. But i do evidence that Michael Brown was murdered without cause, if that’s what you mean.
Or do you mean something else?
useless, I believe we are on the same side, I must have sent you a message that was not meant for you. AS I agree with everything you have said. I am sorry, this Phillip turd is boggling my rational mind with his stupidity. K.
He hasn’t got a leg to stand on. But now that he’s taken his nonsensical position and embroiled himself on the side of an argument which is indefensible, he won’t allow himself to back down. That’s why he keeps trying to introduce all this extraneous matter into the conversation.
The store owner was braver than the cop, it was the store owners cigars. Maybe you should ask the shopkeeper, whether Mike deserved to die over 50.00 retail cigars….you are a mentally impaired human and should seek counsel from a zoologist .
In the larger picture, Michael Brown is not now dead—as did occur—because he robbed for a box of cigars, nor, for jay-walking, but because he was a thug, and as such, possessed little or nothing within himself which was to have kept him out of harm’s way—robbing, conflicting with the police, and no doubt, if we only knew, much more beside, . . . Y’need some book-larnin’, Pal, . . .
Do I, you’re one smart defender of evil. I know your kind. The great thing about being right is no one will believe you. . . I’ve read hundreds of books and hold three degrees. I do not have to debate idiots on line to sound smart. Your words only sicken me. I know what a thug is, in fact, book learning, if you have a brain will surly teach you how much you don’t know. This is obvious in you. You are smart, and you use it to defend murder, I am 10x more human than you and that’s all that matters… keep killing thugs, I’ve heard the feeling is mutual, I wonder why, stay safe for your childrens’ sake. Mike Brown will have no more children, because people like you rather murder a petty thief and a young man that had the ability to intimidate cops to the point they shoot….scared and sworn, he failed the required ethics of a Peace Officer. ps. I AM NOT YOUR PAL, PUPPET !
“I am 10x more human than you”
I roam the net for humor, and your: “I am 10x more human than you” definitely qualifies, . . .you could tack on maybe, something like: “All my friends know how humble I am.”, . . .
Your comment doesn’t have anything to do with the topic. You were just trying to be cute and use what you thought was some obscure and ‘shocking’ piece of trivia to play ‘morality’ Troll on an internet comment thread. No more, no less….what you’ve said…is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that can be considered a rational thought MAY God have mercy on your soul !
Right, it has nothing to do with the topic of the article; it’s just that, in connection with our back-and-forth, you come up with something which, to me, is a funny note: “”I am 10x more human than you,”.
“ps. I AM NOT YOUR PAL !”
So, to use your sense of logic and reason, as in Matthew 22, verse 12, when the king of the wedding says to the party crasher: “Hey Pal, how did you get in here, not dressed for a wedding garment? You look like hell. And the man was speechless.”, because the lord of the wedding addressed him with: “Pal”, he wanted to be, or thought that, they were, or could be, friends, . . . and to you, that would make sense?
But much to the contrary, toward the interloper, of course, the lord of the wedding intended nothing at all of friendship, and knew that, the guy was soon to be bound and thrown out, into the darkness.
I already told you I am NOT your Pal, and whats your sorry ass excuse for calling me Buddy…are you a Butt Pirate ? Jesus hung around 12 men, no wife. You are just like you Daddy aren’t you …. how cute ! I am Plutus, so praise me bitch !
Phillip GOD IS DEAD and your mind is as feeble as a lamb ! Now, I understand your dementia “GOD’ Of what Murder ? Your Daddys’ in the sky and you will receive no reward because you are a complete idiot ! Now go ask you hands if they will forgive you for being STUPID !
I refuse to discus anything more with a diluted impotent child of a perverted God !
Although, sure, the robbing of the cigars is legally classifiable as a petty crime, because Michael Brown shoved the clerk—thus involving a possible broken neck, say, or, a head injury, or, death—in my opinion, at that point, Michael Brown left the arena of petty crime. And, as elsewhere I’ve noted, in Oklahoma, in a business, deadly force against him would have been ok, . . . and again, the upshot being to end up with one less of the criminal type a danger in the community.
https://www.facebook.com/joan.edwards.5249
Cops and war are not Civil !
Number one:
Number of buildings burnt: 1
Number of stores looted <25
Number of protesters: 10,000+
There are, and were, many different people, with many different messages, at this event. But the vast majority of them were peaceful protesters. Don't tell me you condone pointing loaded sniper rifles at daytime protesters, gassing journalists, and firing rubber bullets at children?
Number two:
Since when do someone's rights get eliminated if we think they are involved in a crime? If you believe that not enough of them were condemning the violence, since when is silence a felony? Even if you (falsely) believe that every single person in Ferguson was looting, setting things on fire, and destroying the community, they still have their rights, and any organization worth its salt should have been out there defending them.
Though, since you gladly refer to human beings as animals, it should be difficult for any of us "animals" to take you seriously.
Have you heard, the people who would be hurt the most by this are hiring sock puppets to distort the truth to those on-line, and to build support for a Cop who brutally shot to death a young unarmed man, it’s being said his arms made him an armed man.Must be a conservative narrative as it has a childlike premise….
You’re confusing yourself: It is not one’s physique which dictates that, one is armed in terms of weapons, but rather, what that one does with the elements of physique—y’need some book-larnin’, . . . in terms covering the logic of language and discussion, . . .
Don’t call me buddy ! logic of language ? I am a Professor of applied linguistics. I am multi lingual. Attacking my intelligence can’t hurt me, Dumb Ass.
However, I do understand you’re irrational and biased. Remember, ‘know the language of you enemy’ ! you are truly pitiful. . .
Well, the Apostle does mention: vile men who are as brute beasts to be caught and killed; so, . . . for whatever of “rights” might be attributed to the Ferguson residents, plainly, there were not a sufficient number of them to have exercised their rights, and stopped the mayhem, . . . any more than—in many jurisdictions—were there a sufficient number of decent USA citizens to have prevented a Moslem from re-election, . . .
You are pathetic, everyone knows what happen ! and cops will now have to settle the ‘John Wayne mentality down. Do you honestly expect people to act civilized when the police were militarized . Have a good day cop.
I expect that, decent persons will bear themselves in decency, whether the police are militarized, or not, . . .
You are making the assumption that these groups agreed with or would have been welcomed by the protesters. That somehow turning W Florissant into Lexington and Concord would have somehow created a situation that would have been beneficial to someone other than the Government and their desire to remove the second amendment rights.
I am not sure where you get off believing that others see things the way you do. Showing up to argue with the police in a situation created solely off of media hype and circumstantial evidence would be preposterous for an organization like the NRA. Not to mention that this was not about Second Amendment Rights.
Media hype and circumstantial evidence?? really?? How many times have you seen the eyewitnesses to this event on TV compared to statements from the police? Thgats the media HIDING the truth and HYPING the police. But I get your point, so how about the man shot to death in the walmart simply for deciding to purchase a gun. Where is the NRA on that? Where was the NRA when the Black Panthers exercised their legal right to carry?
“Where was the NRA when the Black Panthers exercised their legal right to carry?”?
There is a principle throughout life which says that, he who seeks fairness must come with clean hands, . . . and, . . . in much baggage, . . . the Black Panthers are, . . . are unsupportable in decency.
Check your history…The Panthers were an unknown civic organization…..UNTIL they started patrolling with long barreled arms.(California law permitted such at the time) It was at that point that they attracted the attention of the FBI. All the baggage you are implying came AFTER the fact.
Note to self. Buy gas masks so that during protestes I can…protest, even when being gassed. Which (tear gas) is illegal in war, but perfectly fine to use on US citizens on US soil.
You mistake the conservative movement for the liberty movement. The conservative movement is just statism wrapped in a book of fairy tales (religion) mixed in with the collectivist clap trap known as nationalism. They understand real liberty like a liberal understands economics. Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists are the only ones with any credibility when it comes to government thug abuse or abuse from the state in general for that matter. Kent State, Wounded Knee (1973), Waco among other national episodes saw conservatives and liberals cheering on the armed thugs of the state when they were attacking their ideological enemies (granted there isnt much difference between these two strains of bacteria) while condeming those same thugs when they went after their own team.
With all due respect Mr. Galey, your fancy ass mastery of the English language does nothing to support the facts. If anything, your rebuttals are delusional, confusing at best.
“The ‘liberty movement’ was almost nonexistent.”?
While they were watching, Michael Brown had just way too much bad baggage, . . . Ask yourself: “Would any decent person wish to see his appearance standing in support of a common thug, or with a gang of looters?”.
Please don’t just share, use this in your local city, its very easy to get passed but will protect you greatly:
City/County Loyalty-to-the-Constitution Resolution
In this day of daily-increasing anarchy and tyranny in our country, it
is more important than ever to stand by our beloved Constitutional Law.
Our country was founded on certain unalienable principles of freedom
and safety, including life, liberty and the right to pursue happiness.
These and other rights and responsibilities were enumerated within a
trinity of supreme legal covenants between We the People and those whom
we select to be our public servants: the Declaration of Independence[a],
the 1787 Constitution for the United States of America[b] and the Bill
of Rights[c]. These three documents define exactly what the law can and
cannot be. Any “law” outside of or opposed to these documents is “null
and void,” meaning it is not law and has no legal power[d]. Any attempt
to create or enforce repugnant or “null and void” pronouncements is
criminal in nature and is a very serious potential threat to our
country’s safety[e]. The past 13 years of skyrocketing legal anarchy
within our governmental system, and the untold terror and damage this
has caused to our people and governmental institutions, powerfully and
convincingly illustrates this simple truth[f].
The anti-Americanism
and hostility to our legal system of Constitutional laws and checks and
balances by the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches of our
federal government has become so extreme that our federal servants are
now writing themselves illegal permission slips to fund and provide
weapons, tanks and planes to our declared enemies in a time of
war[g]…while claiming the “right” to lie to[h], harass and/or sexually
molest at airports[i], break and enter the homes of[j], kidnap and deny
trials or charges to[k], or even murder[l] any adult or child in our
country, for any or no reason whatsoever[m]. Our religious[n] and
speech[o] freedoms, as well as the right to bear arms in defense of our
country and families[p], are also under attack as never before. The
federal government has also redefined the dictionary definition of
“terrorism” to now include the vast majority of the
population…including all Christians, people with more than a week’s
supply of food, people who support our American, Constitutional, form of
government, and anyone who speaks out against government corruption,
including government whistleblowers doing their jobs to protect our
country[q]. All non-currently-active military personnel are also
automatically “suspected terrorists” according to the federal
government’s upside-down “definition of terrorism(r).” Under the NDAA,
in fact, all police, sheriffs and other law enforcement, as well as all
journalists who arrest or investigate any real or alleged threat to our
country, are automatically considered to be “suspected terrorists”
subject to immediate military assault and/or kidnapping and imprisonment
for life, without charges or trials, as they are by definition
“associated forces” with “suspected terrorists”…as are all of the
formerly mentioned peoples[s].
The problem is serious, but there’s
an easy solution. All political, economic and military power is
ultimately local. We’re forgotten that. It’s time to do what our
Founding Fathers told us do and once again go local in our efforts, and
restore our American form of government to our city by simply passing
this resolution declaring loyalty by all (your city, town or county)
citizens, law enforcement, military and government workers to the
Constitution for the United States of America. Our police, sheriff, city
council and former and currently-serving military members have already
sworn legally-binding solemn oaths of office to protect and defend our
American Constitution. Many of us have also sworn non-secular oaths of
allegiance to God and country in school, in our homes or in our places
of worship(t).
It’s time we all joined together and legally
reaffirmed that oath to America in defense of our lives, our families
and our country by passing this “Resolution of Loyalty to the
Constitution for the United States and the Bill of Rights”:
“It
is resolved this ___ day of ____, 2014 that every local, state and
federal government official, police officer, sheriff, military member,
as well as all other citizens and non-citizens, while within the
physical boundaries of the City/County/Township of __________, shall be
guaranteed every legal protection and right guaranteed in the
Constitution for the United States of America of 1787 and our Bill of
Rights. These rights include but are not limited to: freedom of speech,
freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, protection from illegal
search and seizure, protection against kidnapping, indefinite detention,
denial of charges or trials, voting or other politically motivated
intimidation, murder, poisoning, expatriation, torture or violence of
any kind.”
Bibliography:
(Note: we are not endorsing any
opinions or violent quotes or comments on these or any other site or
document. All references are given only for non-violent and
informational purposes)
(a) http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
(b) http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
http://www.usavsus.info
(c) https://www.aclu.org/united-states-bill-rights
(d) http://seattlecentral.edu/faculty/jhubert/marburyvsmadison.html
(e) http://planet.infowars.com/politics/obama-bush-clinton-and-more-indicted-for-war-crimes-dr-steve-pieczenik
http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2011/12/11/obama-proposes-preventive-indefinite-detention-of-americans/
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2012/11/12/cbs-news-admits-fema-camps-are-real/
http://www.creators.com/opinion/ben-shapiro/will-tyranny-ever-come-to-america.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans
http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/browse-career-and-job-categories/legal-and-law-enforcement/internment-resettlement-specialist.html
http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/339573/3/I-Team-The-Armys-secret-Cold-War-ex
(f) http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-many-americans-feel-less-safe/
http://www.caringforourchildrenfoundation.org/?p=22690
http://tsanewsblog.com/4306/news/tsa-harasses-two-disabled-children-in-philadelphia/
http://www.naturalnews.com/036346_TSA_pedophiles_whistleblower.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gyQTkgnd28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSZksnL2tCQ&feature=share
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpvLlZnPpBU
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131019/02322924936/accidentally-revealed-document-shows-tsa-doesnt-think-terrorists-are-plotting-to-attack-airplanes.shtml
http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html
(g) http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-gunrunning-to-al-qaeda/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/08/03/its-official-us-funding-al-qaeda-and-taliban/
http://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/u-s-congress-secretly-approves-continued-funding-of-terrorism-in-syria/
(h) http://planet.infowars.com/uncategorized/busted-lax-false-flag-shooting-hoax-exposed
http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-legalizes-propaganda-2012-5
(i) http://www.naturalnews.com/033191_TSA_molestation.html
(j) http://www.infowars.com/while-you-were-sleeping-they-abolished-the-fourth-amendment/
(k) http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/02/06/resistance-to-ndaa-kidnapping-powers-is-our-duty/
http://www.prlog.org/11793889-camille-marino-first-victim-of-the-ndaa-bill-1867-implemented-on-new-years-eve.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/30/1114931/-It-s-Happened-Military-Police-vs-Civilians-in-Anaheim
http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/04/22/martial-law-in-boston/
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/battlefield-usa-a-de-facto-state-of-martial-law-has-been-declared_04192013
(l) http://www.naturalnews.com/039591_Obama_drone_strikes_American_citizens.html
(m) http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/watchwomanonthewall/2012/01/obama-signs-new-law-incarcerate-us-citizens-without-warrant-due-process-trial.html http://www.constitutioncampaign.org/blog/?p=16973
(n) http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-wants-to-determine-who-can-be-a-“minister”/http://www.thomasmore.org/news/sharia-law-gains-foothold-us-federal-judge-upholds-government-funding-islam
http://therightswriter.com/2011/10/obama-wants-to-determine-who-can-be-a-minister/
http://www.thomasmore.org/news/sharia-law-gains-foothold-us-federal-judge-upholds-government-funding-islam
(o) http://offgridsurvival.com/freespeechzones/
(p) http://www.liveandlocalenc.com/proof-gun-control-increases-crime/
http://freepatriot.org/2014/03/15/breaking-news-atf-breaks-ares-armor-second-amendment-attack/
(q) http://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/10-ridiculous-things-that-make-you.html
http://www.storyleak.com/undersheriff-dhs-anti-governmentt-christians-terrorists/
http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20100305_911_whistleblowers.htm
http://www.projectcensored.org/4-obamas-war-whistleblowers/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/20/bush-era-nsa-whistleblower-makes-most-explosive-allegations-yet-about-true-extent-of-govt-surveillance/
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/06/21/msnbc-censors-nsa-whistleblower-russ-tice-minutes-before-interview/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/30/obama-administration-threatening-benghazi-whistleb/
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2013/08/03/benghazi-cia-agents-threatened-keep-silent-you-jeopardize-your-family/
(r) http://www.infowars.com/war-on-terrors-new-targets-veterans-tea-partiers-anti-fed-activists/
http://pandaunite.org/takeback/
http://youtu.be/_FixBaPxUFs (Iraq Veterans are terrorists – Janet Napolitano)
(s) https://www.stopndaa.org/aboutndaa/
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/10/ndaa-lawsuit-struggle-us-constitution
(t) Oath of State, County and City Officials:
The oaths of state and local officials are largely patterned on the
federal oath of constitutional allegiance. Typical would be the oath
taken by all New York government officials:
I solemnly swear (or
affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and
the Constitution of the State of New York, (and the Charter of the City
of New York, e.g.), and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of
the office of (mayor of the City of New York, e.g.) to the best of my
ability. So help me God.
Oath of Enlistment (military members):
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and
the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations
and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Oath of Officers (sheriffs, police, etc.):
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I
take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose
of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of
the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Oath of Citizens:
“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and
to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.”
______________________________________________________________________________
MORE INFO ON THE NDAA AND RELATED ISSUES: http://pandaunite.org/
Please don’t just share, use this in your local city, its very easy to get passed but will protect you greatly:
City/County Loyalty-to-the-Constitution Resolution
In this day of daily-increasing anarchy and tyranny in our country, it
is more important than ever to stand by our beloved Constitutional Law.
Our country was founded on certain unalienable principles of freedom
and safety, including life, liberty and the right to pursue happiness.
These and other rights and responsibilities were enumerated within a
trinity of supreme legal covenants between We the People and those whom
we select to be our public servants: the Declaration of Independence[a],
the 1787 Constitution for the United States of America[b] and the Bill
of Rights[c]. These three documents define exactly what the law can and
cannot be. Any “law” outside of or opposed to these documents is “null
and void,” meaning it is not law and has no legal power[d]. Any attempt
to create or enforce repugnant or “null and void” pronouncements is
criminal in nature and is a very serious potential threat to our
country’s safety[e]. The past 13 years of skyrocketing legal anarchy
within our governmental system, and the untold terror and damage this
has caused to our people and governmental institutions, powerfully and
convincingly illustrates this simple truth[f].
The anti-Americanism
and hostility to our legal system of Constitutional laws and checks and
balances by the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches of our
federal government has become so extreme that our federal servants are
now writing themselves illegal permission slips to fund and provide
weapons, tanks and planes to our declared enemies in a time of
war[g]…while claiming the “right” to lie to[h], harass and/or sexually
molest at airports[i], break and enter the homes of[j], kidnap and deny
trials or charges to[k], or even murder[l] any adult or child in our
country, for any or no reason whatsoever[m]. Our religious[n] and
speech[o] freedoms, as well as the right to bear arms in defense of our
country and families[p], are also under attack as never before. The
federal government has also redefined the dictionary definition of
“terrorism” to now include the vast majority of the
population…including all Christians, people with more than a week’s
supply of food, people who support our American, Constitutional, form of
government, and anyone who speaks out against government corruption,
including government whistleblowers doing their jobs to protect our
country[q]. All non-currently-active military personnel are also
automatically “suspected terrorists” according to the federal
government’s upside-down “definition of terrorism(r).” Under the NDAA,
in fact, all police, sheriffs and other law enforcement, as well as all
journalists who arrest or investigate any real or alleged threat to our
country, are automatically considered to be “suspected terrorists”
subject to immediate military assault and/or kidnapping and imprisonment
for life, without charges or trials, as they are by definition
“associated forces” with “suspected terrorists”…as are all of the
formerly mentioned peoples[s].
The problem is serious, but there’s
an easy solution. All political, economic and military power is
ultimately local. We’re forgotten that. It’s time to do what our
Founding Fathers told us do and once again go local in our efforts, and
restore our American form of government to our city by simply passing
this resolution declaring loyalty by all (your city, town or county)
citizens, law enforcement, military and government workers to the
Constitution for the United States of America. Our police, sheriff, city
council and former and currently-serving military members have already
sworn legally-binding solemn oaths of office to protect and defend our
American Constitution. Many of us have also sworn non-secular oaths of
allegiance to God and country in school, in our homes or in our places
of worship(t).
It’s time we all joined together and legally
reaffirmed that oath to America in defense of our lives, our families
and our country by passing this “Resolution of Loyalty to the
Constitution for the United States and the Bill of Rights”:
“It
is resolved this ___ day of ____, 2014 that every local, state and
federal government official, police officer, sheriff, military member,
as well as all other citizens and non-citizens, while within the
physical boundaries of the City/County/Township of __________, shall be
guaranteed every legal protection and right guaranteed in the
Constitution for the United States of America of 1787 and our Bill of
Rights. These rights include but are not limited to: freedom of speech,
freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, protection from illegal
search and seizure, protection against kidnapping, indefinite detention,
denial of charges or trials, voting or other politically motivated
intimidation, murder, poisoning, expatriation, torture or violence of
any kind.”
Bibliography:
(Note: we are not endorsing any
opinions or violent quotes or comments on these or any other site or
document. All references are given only for non-violent and
informational purposes)
(a) http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
(b) http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
http://www.usavsus.info
(c) https://www.aclu.org/united-states-bill-rights
(d) http://seattlecentral.edu/faculty/jhubert/marburyvsmadison.html
(e) http://planet.infowars.com/politics/obama-bush-clinton-and-more-indicted-for-war-crimes-dr-steve-pieczenik
http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2011/12/11/obama-proposes-preventive-indefinite-detention-of-americans/
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2012/11/12/cbs-news-admits-fema-camps-are-real/
http://www.creators.com/opinion/ben-shapiro/will-tyranny-ever-come-to-america.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans
http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/browse-career-and-job-categories/legal-and-law-enforcement/internment-resettlement-specialist.html
http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/339573/3/I-Team-The-Armys-secret-Cold-War-ex
(f) http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-many-americans-feel-less-safe/
http://www.caringforourchildrenfoundation.org/?p=22690
http://tsanewsblog.com/4306/news/tsa-harasses-two-disabled-children-in-philadelphia/
http://www.naturalnews.com/036346_TSA_pedophiles_whistleblower.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gyQTkgnd28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSZksnL2tCQ&feature=share
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpvLlZnPpBU
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131019/02322924936/accidentally-revealed-document-shows-tsa-doesnt-think-terrorists-are-plotting-to-attack-airplanes.shtml
http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html
(g) http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-gunrunning-to-al-qaeda/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/08/03/its-official-us-funding-al-qaeda-and-taliban/
http://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/u-s-congress-secretly-approves-continued-funding-of-terrorism-in-syria/
(h) http://planet.infowars.com/uncategorized/busted-lax-false-flag-shooting-hoax-exposed
http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-legalizes-propaganda-2012-5
(i) http://www.naturalnews.com/033191_TSA_molestation.html
(j) http://www.infowars.com/while-you-were-sleeping-they-abolished-the-fourth-amendment/
(k) http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/02/06/resistance-to-ndaa-kidnapping-powers-is-our-duty/
http://www.prlog.org/11793889-camille-marino-first-victim-of-the-ndaa-bill-1867-implemented-on-new-years-eve.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/30/1114931/-It-s-Happened-Military-Police-vs-Civilians-in-Anaheim
http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/04/22/martial-law-in-boston/
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/battlefield-usa-a-de-facto-state-of-martial-law-has-been-declared_04192013
(l) http://www.naturalnews.com/039591_Obama_drone_strikes_American_citizens.html
(m) http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/watchwomanonthewall/2012/01/obama-signs-new-law-incarcerate-us-citizens-without-warrant-due-process-trial.html http://www.constitutioncampaign.org/blog/?p=16973
(n) http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-wants-to-determine-who-can-be-a-“minister”/http://www.thomasmore.org/news/sharia-law-gains-foothold-us-federal-judge-upholds-government-funding-islam
http://therightswriter.com/2011/10/obama-wants-to-determine-who-can-be-a-minister/
http://www.thomasmore.org/news/sharia-law-gains-foothold-us-federal-judge-upholds-government-funding-islam
(o) http://offgridsurvival.com/freespeechzones/
(p) http://www.liveandlocalenc.com/proof-gun-control-increases-crime/
http://freepatriot.org/2014/03/15/breaking-news-atf-breaks-ares-armor-second-amendment-attack/
(q) http://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/10-ridiculous-things-that-make-you.html
http://www.storyleak.com/undersheriff-dhs-anti-governmentt-christians-terrorists/
http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20100305_911_whistleblowers.htm
http://www.projectcensored.org/4-obamas-war-whistleblowers/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/20/bush-era-nsa-whistleblower-makes-most-explosive-allegations-yet-about-true-extent-of-govt-surveillance/
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/06/21/msnbc-censors-nsa-whistleblower-russ-tice-minutes-before-interview/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/30/obama-administration-threatening-benghazi-whistleb/
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2013/08/03/benghazi-cia-agents-threatened-keep-silent-you-jeopardize-your-family/
(r) http://www.infowars.com/war-on-terrors-new-targets-veterans-tea-partiers-anti-fed-activists/
http://pandaunite.org/takeback/
http://youtu.be/_FixBaPxUFs (Iraq Veterans are terrorists – Janet Napolitano)
(s) https://www.stopndaa.org/aboutndaa/
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/10/ndaa-lawsuit-struggle-us-constitution
(t) Oath of State, County and City Officials:
The oaths of state and local officials are largely patterned on the
federal oath of constitutional allegiance. Typical would be the oath
taken by all New York government officials:
I solemnly swear (or
affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and
the Constitution of the State of New York, (and the Charter of the City
of New York, e.g.), and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of
the office of (mayor of the City of New York, e.g.) to the best of my
ability. So help me God.
Oath of Enlistment (military members):
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and
the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations
and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Oath of Officers (sheriffs, police, etc.):
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I
take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose
of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of
the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Oath of Citizens:
“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and
to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.”
______________________________________________________________________________
MORE INFO ON THE NDAA AND RELATED ISSUES: http://pandaunite.org/