Honourable Seattle cop makes video supporting the constitution, and chief suspends him, jeopardizes his job

[BULLDOG]

If it's not his personal belief, then whose beliefs is he going by when he refuses to follow the law?

THE CONSTITUTION IS THE LAW. IT IS THE HIGHEST LAW, TAKING PRECEDENCE OVER ALL OTHER LAWS.

An officer of the law, or any other public official, who is willing to violate the Constitution, is no better than the lowest criminal.

I find it ironic when left wrong-wing filth try to play the “rule of law” card in defense of lawlessness and corruption on the part of government.

You really are stoopid, aren't you? Your petulant whine doesn't make your claim correct. There are legal limits to every right granted in the constitution. We passed laws determining what those limits are, and when they can be enforced. A public health emergency is one of those times. Get a grownup to help you look it up.

so youre saying a law can be passed to execute people without trial,,,

my god youre a fucking idiot too,,,

Please point out where I said that. You're making shit up again.

you said we can make laws to limit rights,,,

so that means a law can be made to limit due process and execute a person without a trial,,,

No it doesn't you idiot.

based on what you just said it does,,,

if we can make laws to limit rights then we can make a law that limits due process cause thats a right,,,

You're grabbing at straws kid.

no i'm not,,,just showing the flaw in your opinion,,,

you said we can make laws to limit rights,,, so that means we can make a law to limit due process

Right. You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater, so you think that means we can kill people. You're a genius ---- dumb ass.

WTF???

you can yell fire in a theater you ignorant twit,,,more so if there is a fire,,unless you can show me a law that says that,,,

and what does that have to do with killing people which is illegal,,,

you think its ok to limit a right as long as you agree with it,,,sadly thats just not true as I just proved,,,

Yep, you're still an idiot.

I'm an idiot for trying to show you the flaws in your opinion,,,

your mind is to far gone for that,,,

Nope. You're just an idiot.

but I'm not wrong,,,

Yes you are. You're just too stupid to know it.

then show me the law thats says you cant yell fire in a crowded theater,,,,

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919

 

[progressive hunter]

If it's not his personal belief, then whose beliefs is he going by when he refuses to follow the law?

THE CONSTITUTION IS THE LAW. IT IS THE HIGHEST LAW, TAKING PRECEDENCE OVER ALL OTHER LAWS.

An officer of the law, or any other public official, who is willing to violate the Constitution, is no better than the lowest criminal.

I find it ironic when left wrong-wing filth try to play the “rule of law” card in defense of lawlessness and corruption on the part of government.

You really are stoopid, aren't you? Your petulant whine doesn't make your claim correct. There are legal limits to every right granted in the constitution. We passed laws determining what those limits are, and when they can be enforced. A public health emergency is one of those times. Get a grownup to help you look it up.

so youre saying a law can be passed to execute people without trial,,,

my god youre a fucking idiot too,,,

Please point out where I said that. You're making shit up again.

you said we can make laws to limit rights,,,

so that means a law can be made to limit due process and execute a person without a trial,,,

No it doesn't you idiot.

based on what you just said it does,,,

if we can make laws to limit rights then we can make a law that limits due process cause thats a right,,,

You're grabbing at straws kid.

no i'm not,,,just showing the flaw in your opinion,,,

you said we can make laws to limit rights,,, so that means we can make a law to limit due process

Right. You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater, so you think that means we can kill people. You're a genius ---- dumb ass.

WTF???

you can yell fire in a theater you ignorant twit,,,more so if there is a fire,,unless you can show me a law that says that,,,

and what does that have to do with killing people which is illegal,,,

you think its ok to limit a right as long as you agree with it,,,sadly thats just not true as I just proved,,,

Yep, you're still an idiot.

I'm an idiot for trying to show you the flaws in your opinion,,,

your mind is to far gone for that,,,

Nope. You're just an idiot.

but I'm not wrong,,,

Yes you are. You're just too stupid to know it.

then show me the law thats says you cant yell fire in a crowded theater,,,,

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919

that an opinion and has nothing to do with yelling fire in a theater,,,

 

[BULLDOG]

If it's not his personal belief, then whose beliefs is he going by when he refuses to follow the law?

THE CONSTITUTION IS THE LAW. IT IS THE HIGHEST LAW, TAKING PRECEDENCE OVER ALL OTHER LAWS.

An officer of the law, or any other public official, who is willing to violate the Constitution, is no better than the lowest criminal.

I find it ironic when left wrong-wing filth try to play the “rule of law” card in defense of lawlessness and corruption on the part of government.

You really are stoopid, aren't you? Your petulant whine doesn't make your claim correct. There are legal limits to every right granted in the constitution. We passed laws determining what those limits are, and when they can be enforced. A public health emergency is one of those times. Get a grownup to help you look it up.

so youre saying a law can be passed to execute people without trial,,,

my god youre a fucking idiot too,,,

Please point out where I said that. You're making shit up again.

you said we can make laws to limit rights,,,

so that means a law can be made to limit due process and execute a person without a trial,,,

No it doesn't you idiot.

based on what you just said it does,,,

if we can make laws to limit rights then we can make a law that limits due process cause thats a right,,,

You're grabbing at straws kid.

no i'm not,,,just showing the flaw in your opinion,,,

you said we can make laws to limit rights,,, so that means we can make a law to limit due process

Right. You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater, so you think that means we can kill people. You're a genius ---- dumb ass.

WTF???

you can yell fire in a theater you ignorant twit,,,more so if there is a fire,,unless you can show me a law that says that,,,

and what does that have to do with killing people which is illegal,,,

you think its ok to limit a right as long as you agree with it,,,sadly thats just not true as I just proved,,,

Yep, you're still an idiot.

I'm an idiot for trying to show you the flaws in your opinion,,,

your mind is to far gone for that,,,

Nope. You're just an idiot.

but I'm not wrong,,,

Yes you are. You're just too stupid to know it.

then show me the law thats says you cant yell fire in a crowded theater,,,,

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919

that an opinion and has nothing to do with yelling fire in a theater,,,

Didn't read it, did you?

 

[progressive hunter]

If it's not his personal belief, then whose beliefs is he going by when he refuses to follow the law?

THE CONSTITUTION IS THE LAW. IT IS THE HIGHEST LAW, TAKING PRECEDENCE OVER ALL OTHER LAWS.

An officer of the law, or any other public official, who is willing to violate the Constitution, is no better than the lowest criminal.

I find it ironic when left wrong-wing filth try to play the “rule of law” card in defense of lawlessness and corruption on the part of government.

You really are stoopid, aren't you? Your petulant whine doesn't make your claim correct. There are legal limits to every right granted in the constitution. We passed laws determining what those limits are, and when they can be enforced. A public health emergency is one of those times. Get a grownup to help you look it up.

so youre saying a law can be passed to execute people without trial,,,

my god youre a fucking idiot too,,,

Please point out where I said that. You're making shit up again.

you said we can make laws to limit rights,,,

so that means a law can be made to limit due process and execute a person without a trial,,,

No it doesn't you idiot.

based on what you just said it does,,,

if we can make laws to limit rights then we can make a law that limits due process cause thats a right,,,

You're grabbing at straws kid.

no i'm not,,,just showing the flaw in your opinion,,,

you said we can make laws to limit rights,,, so that means we can make a law to limit due process

Right. You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater, so you think that means we can kill people. You're a genius ---- dumb ass.

WTF???

you can yell fire in a theater you ignorant twit,,,more so if there is a fire,,unless you can show me a law that says that,,,

and what does that have to do with killing people which is illegal,,,

you think its ok to limit a right as long as you agree with it,,,sadly thats just not true as I just proved,,,

Yep, you're still an idiot.

I'm an idiot for trying to show you the flaws in your opinion,,,

your mind is to far gone for that,,,

Nope. You're just an idiot.

but I'm not wrong,,,

Yes you are. You're just too stupid to know it.

then show me the law thats says you cant yell fire in a crowded theater,,,,

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919

that an opinion and has nothing to do with yelling fire in a theater,,,

Didn't read it, did you?

I read the first part and it was about the draft,,,did it say later about fire in a theater???

you specifically said it illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater,,,so show me a law that says that,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

If it's not his personal belief, then whose beliefs is he going by when he refuses to follow the law?

THE CONSTITUTION IS THE LAW. IT IS THE HIGHEST LAW, TAKING PRECEDENCE OVER ALL OTHER LAWS.

An officer of the law, or any other public official, who is willing to violate the Constitution, is no better than the lowest criminal.

I find it ironic when left wrong-wing filth try to play the “rule of law” card in defense of lawlessness and corruption on the part of government.

You really are stoopid, aren't you? Your petulant whine doesn't make your claim correct. There are legal limits to every right granted in the constitution. We passed laws determining what those limits are, and when they can be enforced. A public health emergency is one of those times. Get a grownup to help you look it up.

so youre saying a law can be passed to execute people without trial,,,

my god youre a fucking idiot too,,,

Please point out where I said that. You're making shit up again.

you said we can make laws to limit rights,,,

so that means a law can be made to limit due process and execute a person without a trial,,,

No it doesn't you idiot.

based on what you just said it does,,,

if we can make laws to limit rights then we can make a law that limits due process cause thats a right,,,

You're grabbing at straws kid.

no i'm not,,,just showing the flaw in your opinion,,,

you said we can make laws to limit rights,,, so that means we can make a law to limit due process

Right. You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater, so you think that means we can kill people. You're a genius ---- dumb ass.

WTF???

you can yell fire in a theater you ignorant twit,,,more so if there is a fire,,unless you can show me a law that says that,,,

and what does that have to do with killing people which is illegal,,,

you think its ok to limit a right as long as you agree with it,,,sadly thats just not true as I just proved,,,

Yep, you're still an idiot.

I'm an idiot for trying to show you the flaws in your opinion,,,

your mind is to far gone for that,,,

Nope. You're just an idiot.

but I'm not wrong,,,

Yes you are. You're just too stupid to know it.

then show me the law thats says you cant yell fire in a crowded theater,,,,

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919

that an opinion and has nothing to do with yelling fire in a theater,,,

Didn't read it, did you?

is this the part youre talking about???

Holmes said that expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime, and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding, could be punished.

 

[Levant]

His duty is to uphold the CONSTITUTION. He is not the governors personal goon

...and enforce all laws.

You're an idiot. This isn't 1940's Germany or 1980's GDR.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This officer should find a job with a police Department that still follows the constitution.

 

[Levant]

Yeah but his job is to uphold the law now. From what I understand he is just another dirty cop.

The First Amendment •IS• the law. In fact, as part of the Constitution, it is the highest law, taking precedence above all others.

A dirty cop would be one who violates the Constitution, in order to enforce lesser laws or even executive orders created without legislative authority.

There are limits to the first amendment. You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater. He doesn't have the authority to decide which limitations are proper.

There are other limits to free speech - slander and libel, for instance. But none of those relate to protests against the government.

Are you suggesting that the police have cover by just claiming "I was just following orders"? I've heard that before... it just escapes me from where..

 

[Levant]

This officer should find a job with a police Department that still follows the constitution.

Are you aware of any?

 

[progressive hunter]

Yeah but his job is to uphold the law now. From what I understand he is just another dirty cop.

The First Amendment •IS• the law. In fact, as part of the Constitution, it is the highest law, taking precedence above all others.

A dirty cop would be one who violates the Constitution, in order to enforce lesser laws or even executive orders created without legislative authority.

There are limits to the first amendment. You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater. He doesn't have the authority to decide which limitations are proper.

There are other limits to free speech - slander and libel, for instance. But none of those relate to protests against the government.

Are you suggesting that the police have cover by just claiming "I was just following orders"? I've heard that before... it just escapes me from where..

the reason slander and libel dont count is because what you said was intended to cause harm not that you said it,,,

I can call someone a goat fucker all day long, but unless it was intended to cause harm and does nothing can be done,,,

its all about the intent of the speech not content of the speech,,,

 

[luchitociencia]

By being a cop he forgot that in the so called "emergency situations", laws can be temporarily broken, over passed, etc.

He himself will brake the traffic law crossing red light signals, running over the speed limit, ignore Stop signals, even driving against the traffic when he is responding an emergency.

The order of no congregation in churches was an emergency order guided to avoid people to be infected by the Corona virus. Even when the order is not quite right -and to me was an error to impose it- still is an order coming from higher authorities and must be respected.

He, as a police officer, should be the example of obeying that order, and if he doesn't agree with it, he must follow the proper channels when making his complaint. He can easily ask to be excused or ask for days off, sick leave, vacations, change of duty, etc after presenting his reasons. But he can't go openly against his institution. Doing so, his actions can be even considered as betrayal.

His video might be 100% correct, however, in his position as a police officer, he should have used other alternatives to make his complaint.

 

[Lysistrata]

There are three levels of judicial scrutiny to determine whether a law should be held unconstitutional: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny depending on the facts of the case. What court applied which standard to this executive order? Where is the cite for this decision so that we can read it?

Anderson just offered his individual opinion, with nothing to back it up, and did so in uniform. Anyone can have an individual opinion, but it has no weight.

 

[Levant]

By being a cop he forgot that in the so called "emergency situations", laws can be temporarily broken, over passed, etc.

He himself will brake the traffic law crossing red light signals, running over the speed limit, ignore Stop signals, even driving against the traffic when he is responding an emergency.

The order of no congregation in churches was an emergency order guided to avoid people to be infected by the Corona virus. Even when the order is not quite right -and to me was an error to impose it- still is an order coming from higher authorities and must be respected.

He, as a police officer, should be the example of obeying that order, and if he doesn't agree with it, he must follow the proper channels when making his complaint. He can easily ask to be excused or ask for days off, sick leave, vacations, change of duty, etc after presenting his reasons. But he can't go openly against his institution. Doing so, his actions can be even considered as betrayal.

His video might be 100% correct, however, in his position as a police officer, he should have used other alternatives to make his complaint.

You're ignorant. States have laws to allow the police to do things in traffic that we cannot in an emergency. They don't break the law, their actions are within the law (disregarding those who do break the law in non-emergencies because they can).

There's nothing in the Constitution that allows government to disregard the Constitution in an emergency or even war.

 

[luchitociencia]

You're ignorant. States have laws to allow the police to do things in traffic that we cannot in an emergency. They don't break the law, their actions are within the law (disregarding those who do break the law in non-emergencies because they can).

There's nothing in the Constitution that allows government to disregard the Constitution in an emergency or even war.

Sure, sure, sure you right...

So, you didn't stay home and walked without a mask inside the store.

You just reminded me the great stupidity of many people asking for the president for lifting the stay home ordinance, etc. Such is not for the president to order and such belongs to the Congress and the States.

In emergencies like the Corona virus the Judicial power has not a single bit of control either.

The action of president Trump to stop the entrance of foreign people suspected of carrying a disease was the smarter decision made. No Constitution rule was broken.

The stay at home order can override the basic rights if the intention is protection of the people. The Judicial power can't go against such attempt to protect lives of people and their health.

This is why I compared the BREAKING OF THE TRAFFIC LAW by police when there is an emergency with the current orders of stay at home. No one is ABOVE the law, but in emergencies lots of exceptions are TOLERATED, and the VIOLATIONS to the law are not considered as such.

This police officer and you are the ignorant in this case. Him, because he has acted agaisnt his own police department when he let his feelings to overcome his reason, and you, well, you because you are you and I don't think anyone can change that.

 

[freyasman]

There are three levels of judicial scrutiny to determine whether a law should be held unconstitutional: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny depending on the facts of the case. What court applied which standard to this executive order? Where is the cite for this decision so that we can read it?

Anderson just offered his individual opinion, with nothing to back it up, and did so in uniform. Anyone can have an individual opinion, but it has no weight.

If the guys with guns in the employ of the state won't enforce it, then it is the edicts of the wannabe tyrants (it is not in any way shape or form a "law") that have "no weight".

 

[freyasman]

You're ignorant. States have laws to allow the police to do things in traffic that we cannot in an emergency. They don't break the law, their actions are within the law (disregarding those who do break the law in non-emergencies because they can).

There's nothing in the Constitution that allows government to disregard the Constitution in an emergency or even war.

Sure, sure, sure you right...

So, you didn't stay home and walked without a mask inside the store.

You just reminded me the great stupidity of many people asking for the president for lifting the stay home ordinance, etc. Such is not for the president to order and such belongs to the Congress and the States.

In emergencies like the Corona virus the Judicial power has not a single bit of control either.

The action of president Trump to stop the entrance of foreign people suspected of carrying a disease was the smarter decision made. No Constitution rule was broken.

The stay at home order can override the basic rights if the intention is protection of the people. The Judicial power can't go against such attempt to protect lives of people and their health.

This is why I compared the BREAKING OF THE TRAFFIC LAW by police when there is an emergency with the current orders of stay at home. No one is ABOVE the law, but in emergencies lots of exceptions are TOLERATED, and the VIOLATIONS to the law are not considered as such.

This police officer and you are the ignorant in this case. Him, because he has acted agaisnt his own police department when he let his feelings to overcome his reason, and you, well, you because you are you and I don't think anyone can change that.

Wrong.



You know, for most of my life I have wondered how things like Communist China, Nazi Germany, and Stalin's Soviet Union ever came to be. I wondered also how so-called decent folks could just stand by while folks were kept as slaves and hung for running away...... I simply couldn't figure it out. How could so many people do nothing, and just let that kind of crazy evil take over? How could they let it exist?
But more and more I see just how many people in this world simply don't care about, or have any respect for, freedom and liberty. Like you, for example.
Ya'll just don't give a shit.... it's so important to you to show that you're a compliant and obedient member of the herd, that you will allow people to be robbed of their freedom, their livelihoods, their property, and even their lives, rather than break ranks. You're the kind of people who told the other jews to hurry up and get in the boxcars because you didn't want to upset the Nazi guards. And none of you said shit when your neighbors were put into camps during WWII because their parents were from Japan.

You all disgust me.

But I'm grateful this little pissant flu bug (that 99% of the population shrugs off like it was nothing) has gotten all of you to expose yourselves, and show us all your true natures. Rest assured, we're going to remember you. We're taking notes, and keeping lists, and gathering intel on every one of you mothefuckers, your associations, careers, addresses, etc.

Sooner or later, everyone gets what they got coming.

See you then.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There are other limits to free speech - slander and libel, for instance. But none of those relate to protests against the government.

A few important points regarding slander/libel compare to the sort of First Amendment violations that are now taking place, defended by subhuman left wrong-wing pieces of shit…

Slander/Libel is a civil tort, not a criminal offense. In order to prosecute it, the one having been slandered/libeled has to sue the alleged offender, and prove that he was harmed in some meaningful way by the statements made by the defendant. An important point is that one's rights do end where they violate the rights of others, and in the case of a tort like slander/libel, it is up to the one who claims that his rights have been violated to prove it in a court of law.

Established jurisprudence forbids laws imposing “prior restraint” on speech, that is, specifying what one is not allowed to say.

For example, a law cannot be passed that forbids yelling “Fire!” in a crowded moviehouse (or yelling “Movie!” in a crowded firehouse). If someone does that, resulting in people being harmed, then it is up to those who are harmed to sue the offender.

State governments are illegally imposing prior restraint on the people's right to peaceably assemble. This authority does not legitimately exist, anywhere in this nation, at any level of government.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

By being a cop he forgot that in the so called "emergency situations", laws can be temporarily broken, over passed, etc.

He himself will brake [sic] the traffic law crossing red light signals, running over the speed limit, ignore Stop signals, even driving against the traffic when he is responding an emergency.

Not so. Traffic laws have specific provisions for emergency vehicles, to operate as necessary in ways not otherwise normally allowed, with lights and sirens going; and requiring other motorists to get out of their way.

It is not a case of laws being violated. IT is a case of special exceptions being written into those laws, allowing for emergency vehicles to operate in such a manner.

The order of no congregation in churches was an emergency order guided to avoid people to be infected by the Corona virus. Even when the order is not quite right -and to me was an error to impose it- still is an order coming from higher authorities and must be respected.

The Constitution is the highest authority in this nation; and it explicitly forbids government from violating the people's freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, and other rights.

That is the authority that must be respected.

Any public official that tries to impose or enforce any order or law that violates the Constitution deserves no more respect or obedience than the lowest of criminals.

And neither does any useful idiot who defends such abuses deserve any better respect, either, than that which is due the lowest of criminals.

He, as a police officer, should be the example of obeying that order, and if he doesn't agree with it, he must follow the proper channels when making his complaint. He can easily ask to be excused or ask for days off, sick leave, vacations, change of duty, etc after presenting his reasons. But he can't go openly against his institution. Doing so, his actions can be even considered as betrayal.

The Nuremberg Defence is for worthless, Gillettized pussies.

 

[Wyatt earp]

By being a cop he forgot that in the so called "emergency situations", laws can be temporarily broken, over passed, etc.

He himself will brake the traffic law crossing red light signals, running over the speed limit, ignore Stop signals, even driving against the traffic when he is responding an emergency.

The order of no congregation in churches was an emergency order guided to avoid people to be infected by the Corona virus. Even when the order is not quite right -and to me was an error to impose it- still is an order coming from higher authorities and must be respected.

He, as a police officer, should be the example of obeying that order, and if he doesn't agree with it, he must follow the proper channels when making his complaint. He can easily ask to be excused or ask for days off, sick leave, vacations, change of duty, etc after presenting his reasons. But he can't go openly against his institution. Doing so, his actions can be even considered as betrayal.

His video might be 100% correct, however, in his position as a police officer, he should have used other alternatives to make his complaint.

Fuck you, this will turn out to be mob rule with the Constitution on our side

This is the entire country we are talking about, and we had enough of this bullshit, last weekend the parks where packed in Boise and it will be like it this weekend too.

 

[Lysistrata]

There are three levels of judicial scrutiny to determine whether a law should be held unconstitutional: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny depending on the facts of the case. What court applied which standard to this executive order? Where is the cite for this decision so that we can read it?

Anderson just offered his individual opinion, with nothing to back it up, and did so in uniform. Anyone can have an individual opinion, but it has no weight.

If the guys with guns in the employ of the state won't enforce it, then it is the edicts of the wannabe tyrants (it is not in any way shape or form a "law") that have "no weight".

Now the judiciary is "wannabe tyrants"? What you are proposing is anarchy by thugs out to destroy the rule of law. I hope that you know that you are endorsing a scheme by which each individual among the 320+ million of us is allowed to anything s/he wants to do at the time, with no regard for anyone else, based merely on the individual's finding that what is being demanded by a governor or state legislature is "unconstitutional." Your hero putin must be very proud of you.