How to stop the police from breaking the law, Arizona style.

[woodwork201]

Well said, I am impressed.

Question? I you all of what you say you are, why are you so constantly challenged from the those of us on the right?

Because so many who claim to be on the right are actually on the left but are used to calling anyone who challenges them a leftist.

Not one person who ever called me a leftist can find a post where I said something we would consider leftist. But I challenged them so they yell leftist.

I have proven, documented with their own posts, that many who pretend to be supporters of the right to keep and bear arms are certainly not supporters of "shall not be infringed" or the Constitution. It is not possible to support the 2nd Amendment if you do not support "shall not be infringed". It is not possible to support the Constitution if you do not support the 2nd Amendment.

There are a lot of fake conservatives here, having fooled many into believing that they are gun-rights advocates. They don't like it when I prove them to be liars. They call me leftist to distract from their own words.

 

[woodwork201]

It's 100% constitutional unless and until courts rule otherwise. Claiming otherwise is at odds with reality.

Ahhhh. One of those. The Court is our supreme masters and anything the government does is legal until our supreme masters say no. It's not the Constitution that limits government it's our supreme masters.

No one can ever challenge the law because the lower courts must always rule on the side of the law because Jarlaxle overturned the Supremacy Clause and American Jurisprudence. Only if someone has the means to fight to the Supreme Court can the abuses of government be stopped.

It turns out that you, too, are yet another anti-constitutional, enemy of the United States and the Constitution, supporting, promoting, even encouraging the government to tyranny and operating outside of its constitutional authority.

I've appreciated your thanks and agreement to many of my posts but, now that I learn you're an anti-constitutionalist, I'd prefer you go back and remove any thanks you've added to my posts and never again thank one of my posts. I certainly do not want anyone associating me with an America hater.

 

[woodwork201]

they already have those,, theyre called interfering laws,,

Then there was no need to pass this law. Someone mentioned Angry Birds earl;ier. That was a brilliant comparison. Angry Birds within 3 feet is OK but recording at 7.5 feet is illegal.

 

[woodwork201]

Gotcha, so you actually are a dick, you didn't just get carried away. I suspected, but gave you a chance. Turned out you're just another racist leftist

And you're still not a libertarian. So what?

 

[jc456]

Huh? Just stand 9-10 feet away, dope! That's all! Did that one slip by you? They just don't want you in their business where they have to worry about you being some crazy with a knife while they are already dealing with some other loon.

You’re missing it, they can move the cops out 20 feet and one will have to be eight feet from them. It’s wrong, violates free press.

 

[progressive hunter]

Then there was no need to pass this law. Someone mentioned Angry Birds earl;ier. That was a brilliant comparison. Angry Birds within 3 feet is OK but recording at 7.5 feet is illegal.

I think its good they have officially set a limit,, from watching a lot of the 1st auditors stuff they are just fine with it and are usually more than 8 ft,

think about if you were a cop and what youve seen some cops go through with wild nutjobs, 8 ft is less than two steps away and if a subject decided to attack you wouldnt want to be tripping over someone with a camera with your fist step,,

I'm ok with it as long as cops dont abuse it even though I know some will,,

 

[Jarlaxle]

Ahhhh. One of those. The Court is our supreme masters and anything the government does is legal until our supreme masters say no. It's not the Constitution that limits government it's our supreme masters.

No one can ever challenge the law because the lower courts must always rule on the side of the law because Jarlaxle overturned the Supremacy Clause and American Jurisprudence. Only if someone has the means to fight to the Supreme Court can the abuses of government be stopped.

It turns out that you, too, are yet another anti-constitutional, enemy of the United States and the Constitution, supporting, promoting, even encouraging the government to tyranny and operating outside of its constitutional authority.

I've appreciated your thanks and agreement to many of my posts but, now that I learn you're an anti-constitutionalist, I'd prefer you go back and remove any thanks you've added to my posts and never again thank one of my posts. I certainly do not want anyone associating me with an America hater.

No, I simply understand reality. You either don't or pretend you don't.

 

[protectionist]

Thousands. I don't have time to post them all; how many would it take to convince you that the police often behave illegally and unconstitutionally?

So you have no example. Ho hum.

 

[protectionist]

Yet another anti-constitutional, authoritarian parading as a conservative. You support the Government violating the Constitution then you can never complain no matter how, when, against whom, they violate the Constitution; you gave them permission to ignore it. When they come for our guns, you won't have the right to complain; you told them it was OK to ignore the Constitution.

Who are you to say who is "legitimate"? Do you or the police have the right to judge and punish without trial? I can show you thousands where that hasn't worked out well. That's why we have a Constitution and why we have trials and lawyers.

Your signature is a lie - as it pertains to you. Make America America again? Is that the America you want? Where the police operate in secret and there is no accountability? Where the Constitution means nothing? Where the American police are, like the East German version, the Shield and Sword of the Party - or Stasi?

If, among those "thousands", you showed us ONE, that would be a start.

 

[protectionist]

You seem conflicted. You've gone back and forth at least twice now saying in one post that the courts follow the laws and then the next post that they don't follow the laws.

I clarified that, Can you read ?

 

[pknopp]

You're an idiot. I'm not a leftist, not woke, not a Democrat. I'm the most constitutionally conservative person on this site.

Someone, I don't recall who, questioned whether I lived my life with such absolutes as I post here. Actually, I pretty much do. I am an absolute constitutionalist.

In the world, there is right and wrong. It's absolute. There are often choices because there can be more than one right or more than one wrong so it's possible to do things differently from me and still be right but if you're wrong you're wrong. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

I'm an absolutist on the 2nd Amendment. It says "shall not be infringed" and they meant, "shall not be infringed". There areonly two others on his site that I recall having seen defend "shall not be infringed". All of the others are anti-2nd Amendment. Even if they like and own guns and believe in a limited privilege to keep and bear arms, they neither support nor defend, "shall not be infringed".

I am an absolutist on abortion. Killing an innocent unborn life is never moral with the exception of when the doctors and the mother agree that the risk to the mother's life is such that to continue carrying the baby would result in the death of both the mother and the baby. No other exceptions should exist.

I am an absolutist on free speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater actually is constitutionally protected. When one harms another by executing their rights they can be sued civilly for doing so. Yelling fire in a crowded theater can, and should, get you sued civilly but you don't actually see any federal laws against yelling fire, do you?

If you yell "Fire" and the people just stare at you and tell you to go away, what grounds do they have to sue?

Even if they leave the theater and no one gets hurt, other than the price of the ticket perhaps, what do you sue over?

I am so constitutionally conservative that, compared to me, you're a fucking Stalinist.

What I am also is honest with you and myself. I don't surrender my morals or values for convenience or to keep from offending people like you - you're so woke compared to me that you may as well join Antifa.
I am not perfect, and I do violate my morals and values, but when I do things wrong I own it. I don't try to justify my shortcomings by claiming special circumstance or by blaming others. I don't suggest one set of rules and legal/constitutional protections for those I dislike and another set for me.

I'm not like you who scream about your rights when the left threatens your guns and then openly argue in support of constitutional violations against those with whom I disagree. When you accept, even defend, promote, and encourage, the government to act outside of the constitutional limits imposed on it by the people, then you accept and approve that the Constitution is nothing more than a suggestion.

You argue that government exists without the Constitution as though people like Joe Biden and Tony Fauci must have blue blood or some other birthright authority to rule over us.

Fauci was unable to do anything without the approval of the president. If you agreed with the Supreme Court on the EPA ruling, you would understand this. Nothing Fauci did was done Constitutionally. At any time.

 

[toobfreak]

You’re missing it, they can move the cops out 20 feet and one will have to be eight feet from them. It’s wrong, violates free press.

Yeah maybe, but a bystander taking video with his cellphone isn't the "press."

 

[jc456]

Yeah maybe, but a bystander taking video with his cellphone isn't the "press."

it is if it's posted on social media. Once a photo/ video is shared, that's press. Whether one has credentials or not.

 

[jc456]

Thousands. I don't have time to post them all; how many would it take to convince you that the police often behave illegally and unconstitutionally?

here is the cookie cutter response from Demofks. I have thousands of examples!!!!!! And then at the end of the day ain't got a one. so fking typical of you fking losers.

 

[jc456]

Yeah maybe, but a bystander taking video with his cellphone isn't the "press."

The entire concept seems suspicious, like, don't you dare capture everything I'm doing. What is it they are so afraid of? If everything is above board and legit, what's their beef? Too, you're a co-conservative here, I wouldn't have thought you'd take that position. BTW, if the reason is to keep from contaminating a crime scene then say so. I really don't understand why no transparency to the reason. It smells bad. I fking hate that.

 

[BrokeLoser]

See what you're doing? You asked if there were bad cops before cell phones and when I proved there were bad cops before cell phones, you pretended that I brought up that topic. That's what happens when idiots lose the debate. When the truth defeats them they change the question to make it appear that the answer was no longer the truth.

You asked if there were bad cops before cell phones. Yes, there were bad cops before cell phones.

If you want to talk about crime in the black communities and innocent black babies being shot in their mothers' arms or shot in their car seats in the back seats of their fathers' cars, I'm happy to participate and usually do when those threads come up.

But twisting my proof that there were bad cops before cell phones, in direct answer to your direct question, into suggesting I defend black criminals is inaccurate and an intentional lie on your part. You really are a loser because you're incapable and unwilling to have an honest debate, intentionally choosing lies and deceit when logic and facts fail you.

Again bud….you’re spewing full-blown leftist bullshit…look, citing a couple of cases of police brutality before the cell phone era isn’t proving that police brutality was/is something worth spending time on…
You lefties are always focusing on the .000002%…..it’s just plain bizarre.

 

[kaz]

And you're still not a libertarian. So what?

You're an idiot

 

[toobfreak]

The entire concept seems suspicious, like, don't you dare capture everything I'm doing. What is it they are so afraid of? If everything is above board and legit, what's their beef? Too, you're a co-conservative here, I wouldn't have thought you'd take that position. BTW, if the reason is to keep from contaminating a crime scene then say so. I really don't understand why no transparency to the reason. It smells bad. I fking hate that.

Freedom of the Press referred to freedom of the journalistic industry to freely act as government watchdogs, not idiots taking pictures of police with their cellphones. Even the real press doesn't get 6 feet away from a cop while he is making an arrest!

And as a conservative, I don't own a cellphone, never had a cop making a bust anywhere I was at, but if I did, I'd have sense to stand back at least 10-20 feet and stay out of their hair unless I saw something overtly, grossly wrong or illegal going on that I just had to intercede.

 

[jc456]

Freedom of the Press referred to freedom of the journalistic industry to freely act as government watchdogs, not idiots taking pictures of police with their cellphones. Even the real press doesn't get 6 feet away from a cop while he is making an arrest!

And as a conservative, I don't own a cellphone, never had a cop making a bust anywhere I was at, but if I did, I'd have sense to stand back at least 10-20 feet and stay out of their hair unless I saw something overtly, grossly wrong or illegal going on that I just had to intercede.

I get all of that, and you're correct. The issue is today there is a camera in almost anyone's hand. George Floyd's suicide is evidence that they can't stop the videos otherwise none of them would have been admitted in the trial.

I have no desire to take videos of cops doing their job, I will say that if I saw something that was out of place at a scene I was at, I'd think twice about not taking any video. Bad cops are bad cops, I give a shit about their feelings. Do your job and it will all work out in court.

 

[progressive hunter]

So you have no example. Ho hum.

I posted dozens of them in this thread,,