'Oath Keepers' spotted carrying guns, walking along Ferguson streets

[martybegan]

They're actually oath violators.

How so?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm surprised that these guys in Ferguson carrying guns are not also carrying gasoline to throw on any fire that they might come across.

So exercising rights now equals arson? Right....

OK, go into a dark crowded theater and exercise your right to free speech by yelling, "FIRE!!!!!"

That is an actual illegal action, which would be the equivalent of the Oath keepers firing on people or even brandishing their weapons for no reason.
Not just walking around legally armed.

Until they are told to go away, which is perfectly legal for LEO to do.

 

[martybegan]

"Obey and litigate later is worthless because police will never face repercussions for it." You don't know that. And that is the way it is.

"Look at the asshole in Utah who shot some guys dog in the guys own yard, and got off scott free." The shooting in SLC of the dog really shook me up. The Chief of Police and I quarrelled in the AFCU building down the street from LEO hqs, but he was right in that the cop had followed protocol. I told Chris to change the protocol.

"Police are not our lords and masters, they are civil servants, something you seem to forget." I know fully who they are and why they are empowered to use violence. So that yahoos like you are not running around with guns in serious situations.

How is it feudalism?

I'll respond to this when you fix it with the proper quote function, until then it is an unreadable mishmash.

 

[martybegan]

I'm surprised that these guys in Ferguson carrying guns are not also carrying gasoline to throw on any fire that they might come across.

So exercising rights now equals arson? Right....

OK, go into a dark crowded theater and exercise your right to free speech by yelling, "FIRE!!!!!"

That is an actual illegal action, which would be the equivalent of the Oath keepers firing on people or even brandishing their weapons for no reason.
Not just walking around legally armed.

Until they are told to go away, which is perfectly legal for LEO to do.

I can't be just told to "go away" unless there is a lawful reason. A Police Officer just "feeling like it" is not a lawful reason.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Obey and litigate later is worthless because police will never face repercussions for it." You don't know that. And that is the way it is.

"Look at the asshole in Utah who shot some guys dog in the guys own yard, and got off scott free." The shooting in SLC of the dog really shook me up. The Chief of Police and I quarrelled in the AFCU building down the street from LEO hqs, but he was right in that the cop had followed protocol. I told Chris to change the protocol.

"Police are not our lords and masters, they are civil servants, something you seem to forget." I know fully who they are and why they are empowered to use violence. So that yahoos like you are not running around with guns in serious situations.

How is it feudalism?

I'll respond to this when you fix it with the proper quote function, until then it is an unreadable mishmash.

How I use it is my determination as to what is proper and readable.

It is easily readable and understandable.

I do understand English is your second language, so this is a good challenge for you.

 

[martybegan]

"Obey and litigate later is worthless because police will never face repercussions for it." You don't know that. And that is the way it is.

"Look at the asshole in Utah who shot some guys dog in the guys own yard, and got off scott free." The shooting in SLC of the dog really shook me up. The Chief of Police and I quarrelled in the AFCU building down the street from LEO hqs, but he was right in that the cop had followed protocol. I told Chris to change the protocol.

"Police are not our lords and masters, they are civil servants, something you seem to forget." I know fully who they are and why they are empowered to use violence. So that yahoos like you are not running around with guns in serious situations.

How is it feudalism?

I'll respond to this when you fix it with the proper quote function, until then it is an unreadable mishmash.

How I use it is my determination as to what is proper and readable.

It is easily readable and understandable.

I do understand English is your second language, so this is a good challenge for you.

Format matters. You can't tell where my statements end and yours begin. If you are going to reply in "Fisking" format, learn to use the quote function properly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm surprised that these guys in Ferguson carrying guns are not also carrying gasoline to throw on any fire that they might come across.

So exercising rights now equals arson? Right....

OK, go into a dark crowded theater and exercise your right to free speech by yelling, "FIRE!!!!!"

That is an actual illegal action, which would be the equivalent of the Oath keepers firing on people or even brandishing their weapons for no reason.
Not just walking around legally armed.

Until they are told to go away, which is perfectly legal for LEO to do.

I can't be just told to "go away" unless there is a lawful reason. A Police Officer just "feeling like it" is not a lawful reason.

Of course you can, and you can litigate it later. Escalate the situation and you are breaking the law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Obey and litigate later is worthless because police will never face repercussions for it." You don't know that. And that is the way it is.

"Look at the asshole in Utah who shot some guys dog in the guys own yard, and got off scott free." The shooting in SLC of the dog really shook me up. The Chief of Police and I quarrelled in the AFCU building down the street from LEO hqs, but he was right in that the cop had followed protocol. I told Chris to change the protocol.

"Police are not our lords and masters, they are civil servants, something you seem to forget." I know fully who they are and why they are empowered to use violence. So that yahoos like you are not running around with guns in serious situations.

How is it feudalism?

I'll respond to this when you fix it with the proper quote function, until then it is an unreadable mishmash.

How I use it is my determination as to what is proper and readable.

It is easily readable and understandable.

I do understand English is your second language, so this is a good challenge for you.

Format matters. You can't tell where my statements end and yours begin. If you are going to reply in "Fisking" format, learn to use the quote function properly.

I certainly can, bub. It's within the rules, so you better learn the rules. Sux to be you.

 

[Dot Com]

Hopefully they can thin the herd, think of the welfare savings!!!!!

racist much asswipe?

 

[martybegan]

So exercising rights now equals arson? Right....

OK, go into a dark crowded theater and exercise your right to free speech by yelling, "FIRE!!!!!"

That is an actual illegal action, which would be the equivalent of the Oath keepers firing on people or even brandishing their weapons for no reason.
Not just walking around legally armed.

Until they are told to go away, which is perfectly legal for LEO to do.

I can't be just told to "go away" unless there is a lawful reason. A Police Officer just "feeling like it" is not a lawful reason.

Of course you can, and you can litigate it later. Escalate the situation and you are breaking the law.

In that case he should be fired for issuing an illegal order. That is the only litigation i would accept. Police have too much power to be allowed to use it without consequences.

 

[martybegan]

"Obey and litigate later is worthless because police will never face repercussions for it." You don't know that. And that is the way it is.

"Look at the asshole in Utah who shot some guys dog in the guys own yard, and got off scott free." The shooting in SLC of the dog really shook me up. The Chief of Police and I quarrelled in the AFCU building down the street from LEO hqs, but he was right in that the cop had followed protocol. I told Chris to change the protocol.

"Police are not our lords and masters, they are civil servants, something you seem to forget." I know fully who they are and why they are empowered to use violence. So that yahoos like you are not running around with guns in serious situations.

How is it feudalism?

I'll respond to this when you fix it with the proper quote function, until then it is an unreadable mishmash.

How I use it is my determination as to what is proper and readable.

It is easily readable and understandable.

I do understand English is your second language, so this is a good challenge for you.

Format matters. You can't tell where my statements end and yours begin. If you are going to reply in "Fisking" format, learn to use the quote function properly.

I certainly can, bub. It's within the rules, so you better learn the rules. Sux to be you.

It's not about rules, it's about courtesy, and you obviously do not have any. If you won't spend the time to format your response properly I will not waste my time responding. That mean's you have given up on this discussion, not me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marty knows the law. If gunfire breaks out, the LEO will tell the unorganized militia to put down their weapons and leave. If the militia resist and raise their weapons, they will be shot. Marty knows the law and hates it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, go into a dark crowded theater and exercise your right to free speech by yelling, "FIRE!!!!!"

That is an actual illegal action, which would be the equivalent of the Oath keepers firing on people or even brandishing their weapons for no reason.
Not just walking around legally armed.

Until they are told to go away, which is perfectly legal for LEO to do.

I can't be just told to "go away" unless there is a lawful reason. A Police Officer just "feeling like it" is not a lawful reason.

Of course you can, and you can litigate it later. Escalate the situation and you are breaking the law.

In that case he should be fired for issuing an illegal order. That is the only litigation i would accept. Police have too much power to be allowed to use it without consequences.

You are not final determiner of the law is the point, so all your mouthing today is arrogant and ignorant nonsense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Obey and litigate later is worthless because police will never face repercussions for it." You don't know that. And that is the way it is.

"Look at the asshole in Utah who shot some guys dog in the guys own yard, and got off scott free." The shooting in SLC of the dog really shook me up. The Chief of Police and I quarrelled in the AFCU building down the street from LEO hqs, but he was right in that the cop had followed protocol. I told Chris to change the protocol.

"Police are not our lords and masters, they are civil servants, something you seem to forget." I know fully who they are and why they are empowered to use violence. So that yahoos like you are not running around with guns in serious situations.

How is it feudalism?

I'll respond to this when you fix it with the proper quote function, until then it is an unreadable mishmash.

How I use it is my determination as to what is proper and readable.

It is easily readable and understandable.

I do understand English is your second language, so this is a good challenge for you.

Format matters. You can't tell where my statements end and yours begin. If you are going to reply in "Fisking" format, learn to use the quote function properly.

I certainly can, bub. It's within the rules, so you better learn the rules. Sux to be you.

It's not about rules, it's about courtesy, and you obviously do not have any. If you won't spend the time to format your response properly I will not waste my time responding. That mean's you have given up on this discussion, not me.

You have been discourteous in almost every post. You can't answer the question is the point. You are giving up.

 

[martybegan]

That is an actual illegal action, which would be the equivalent of the Oath keepers firing on people or even brandishing their weapons for no reason.
Not just walking around legally armed.

Until they are told to go away, which is perfectly legal for LEO to do.

I can't be just told to "go away" unless there is a lawful reason. A Police Officer just "feeling like it" is not a lawful reason.

Of course you can, and you can litigate it later. Escalate the situation and you are breaking the law.

In that case he should be fired for issuing an illegal order. That is the only litigation i would accept. Police have too much power to be allowed to use it without consequences.

You are not final determiner of the law is the point, so all your mouthing today is arrogant and ignorant nonsense.

Again with your deference to authority. You also didn't actually respond to my statement, so i guess you fully endorse employment of police officers who issue illegal orders, and overstep their bounds.

 

[martybegan]

I'll respond to this when you fix it with the proper quote function, until then it is an unreadable mishmash.

How I use it is my determination as to what is proper and readable.

It is easily readable and understandable.

I do understand English is your second language, so this is a good challenge for you.

Format matters. You can't tell where my statements end and yours begin. If you are going to reply in "Fisking" format, learn to use the quote function properly.

I certainly can, bub. It's within the rules, so you better learn the rules. Sux to be you.

It's not about rules, it's about courtesy, and you obviously do not have any. If you won't spend the time to format your response properly I will not waste my time responding. That mean's you have given up on this discussion, not me.

You have been discourteous in almost every post. You can't answer the question is the point. You are giving up.

No, you are by refusing to format your response in a readable way.

And anger in the face of oppression is nothing to apologize over.

 

[Dot Com]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Until they are told to go away, which is perfectly legal for LEO to do.

I can't be just told to "go away" unless there is a lawful reason. A Police Officer just "feeling like it" is not a lawful reason.

Of course you can, and you can litigate it later. Escalate the situation and you are breaking the law.

In that case he should be fired for issuing an illegal order. That is the only litigation i would accept. Police have too much power to be allowed to use it without consequences.

You are not final determiner of the law is the point, so all your mouthing today is arrogant and ignorant nonsense.

Again with your deference to authority. You also didn't actually respond to my statement, so i guess you fully endorse employment of police officers who issue illegal orders, and overstep their bounds.

I know that you can litigate later orders you consider unlawful. You do not have the legal power to argue it when told to go away from a dangerous scene.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How I use it is my determination as to what is proper and readable.

It is easily readable and understandable.

I do understand English is your second language, so this is a good challenge for you.

Format matters. You can't tell where my statements end and yours begin. If you are going to reply in "Fisking" format, learn to use the quote function properly.

I certainly can, bub. It's within the rules, so you better learn the rules. Sux to be you.

It's not about rules, it's about courtesy, and you obviously do not have any. If you won't spend the time to format your response properly I will not waste my time responding. That mean's you have given up on this discussion, not me.

You have been discourteous in almost every post. You can't answer the question is the point. You are giving up.

No, you are by refusing to format your response in a readable way. And anger in the face of oppression is nothing to apologize over.

My formatting to particular points is very clear and in context. You don't like it, and I don't care.

Be angry all you want but don't lose your common sense.

 

[martybegan]

I can't be just told to "go away" unless there is a lawful reason. A Police Officer just "feeling like it" is not a lawful reason.

Of course you can, and you can litigate it later. Escalate the situation and you are breaking the law.

In that case he should be fired for issuing an illegal order. That is the only litigation i would accept. Police have too much power to be allowed to use it without consequences.

You are not final determiner of the law is the point, so all your mouthing today is arrogant and ignorant nonsense.

Again with your deference to authority. You also didn't actually respond to my statement, so i guess you fully endorse employment of police officers who issue illegal orders, and overstep their bounds.

I know that you can litigate later orders you consider unlawful. You do not have the legal power to argue it when told to go away from a dangerous scene.

That later litigation is meaningless because the person doing the illegal order is usually never punished. Again, police should be fired when they break regulations. The power they have is too much to allow them to get away with breaking regulations.