For those of us who have the feeling we are loosing our freedoms, here is a video of a bunch of God complexed Barneys routinely trashing the Constitutional rights of a young man up in Tennessee.

 

http://benswann.com/he-has-no-...nstitutional-rights/

 

Makes you wonder how much longer before we become a police state.

 

 

=========================================================

 

“Attempting to debate with a person who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead.”
― Thomas Paine

Original Post

 Over and over his constitutional rights were violated and once again he was told the same thing so many of us have heard over and over: that we must sacrifice our liberty for safety.

 

Hmmmm........seems we've been hearing this same mantra from Bloomberg and company.  Do you consider them a bunch of "Barneys" as well?

The Supreme Court has ruled check points to specifically locate drugs is illegal.  The DUI checkpoints are more about revenue, than getting drunks off the road.  Only an avalanche of lawsuits and voting out sheriffs who specifically do checkpoints for revenue will change their ways. 

 

In the UK, if  LEO breaks the law, he may be sued, like the US.  However, if the state prosecutor does not change the LEO, a private citizen, if he can afford it, may prosecute the LEO on his own.  Law enforcement must give up all evidence.  Doesn't happen often, but does keep the constables on their toes.

 

There is no precedent to suspend constitutional rights, except habeas corpus. Even the Civil War was not sufficient reason to suspend that.

Well Dire, I agree, but what bothers me most is it seems that every day we are seeing some out of control cops proving they think they are above the law and that they are somehow gods.

Here is one from a couple of days ago about some little Barney who arrested a girl for buying water at a convenience store. Apparently he approached her car without any identification and she thought she was being mugged.
http://www.theblaze.com/storie...uying-bottled-water/

 

At least there is a little justice here on the students in California whose Constitutional rights were blatantly violated, but I think $1M is not nearly enough punishment, and I also think that cop should have to pay most of it himself, but that's just me.

http://www.reuters.com/article...dUSBRE88P1H320120926

Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:

 Over and over his constitutional rights were violated and once again he was told the same thing so many of us have heard over and over: that we must sacrifice our liberty for safety.

 

Hmmmm........seems we've been hearing this same mantra from Bloomberg and company.  Do you consider them a bunch of "Barneys" as well?

------------------------

 

Hoob,

 

I direct you to the Patriot Act. Bloomberg is not making federal laws. Our constitutional rights have been being violating by that act since 2002. It was further trampled on by FISA amendments (which gave NSA its real power) in 2008.

 

Where you been? Bloomberg is the least of our worries.

 

I hope this young man sues. Every day we are seeing more and more videos of LEO overstepping and we have to put a stop to it.

It is an insult to the memory of Barney Fife to associate this cretinous, blustering cop with him.

 

James O'Keefe, the right wing dude who set up the covert operation on Acorn and Planned Parenthood, should apply his talents to exposing these kinds of travesties of law enforcement activity. Or maybe Chris Hansen, of MSNBC's "To Catch a Predator," could build a new show around the theme "To Catch Cop Bullies."

Originally Posted by Contendah:

It is an insult to the memory of Barney Fife to associate this cretinous, blustering cop with him.

 

James O'Keefe, the right wing dude who set up the covert operation on Acorn and Planned Parenthood, should apply his talents to exposing these kinds of travesties of law enforcement activity. Or maybe Chris Hansen, of MSNBC's "To Catch a Predator," could build a new show around the theme "To Catch Cop Bullies."

============

I do apologize to the real Barney Fife, but you gotta realize that this forum has an electrical nanny that will not allow what I think of those out of control cops to be posted withoug *******************.

 Or maybe Chris Hansen, of MSNBC's "To Catch a Predator," could build a new show around the theme "To Catch Cop Bullies."


--------------------------


If he can't catch any real ones he can do what they always do at msnbc, make it up and put it out there as true.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

 Or maybe Chris Hansen, of MSNBC's "To Catch a Predator," could build a new show around the theme "To Catch Cop Bullies."


--------------------------


If he can't catch any real ones he can do what they always do at msnbc, make it up and put it out there as true.

___

And depend on  know-nothing knee-jerks like you to absurdly and promiscuously employ the term "always."  

Originally Posted by dogsoldier0513:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

Well Dire, I agree, but what bothers me most is it seems that every day we are seeing some out of control cops proving they think they are above the law....

 I'm curious: Would you include AG Holder among these 'out of control cops'?

====================

No, I doubt if you, me , or anybody we know will have reason to come across AG Holder, as I (hope) that none of us are exchanging guns for drugs in Mexico. Of course there are two simple solutions to that entire problem - 1> end the "war on drugs" , 2> vote out Sessions and Shelby who BOTH voted to keep it easy for criminals and psychopaths to buy guns.  (if you voted for either, then YOU , my friend, are part of the problem)

> On the other hand, I have already had experience with out of control cops, and my bet is that most people you and I know either already have, will have, or know someone who has or will.

Cases in point : 

  If you happen to be on the way to buy a car in Tenn (maybe other places),and you are planning on paying cash (like most people sell one to one cars)  and the cops learn you have a lot of cash, they not only can , but will seize that money claiming it could have been used in a drug transaction . - That happened

If your underage daughter goes to buy some bottled water at a local convenience store, and a cop sees her , she may be arrested . - That happened

If you are sitting peacefully on a college campus in protest of something, you may be sprayed with pepper spray that is classified by the army as a chemical weapon - it happened

Worse yet, if you are peacefully, but loudly protesting on a college campus in Ohio, you may just be shot - it happened

If you are driving in a certain parrish in La, and you change lanes on the interstate, you may be pulled over for "improper lane change"  and your car seized by the police dept because it looks like it may have been used in transporting drugs. - it has happened, but last I heard the court made the county quit.

If you leave Sheffield at 2AM getting off of work, and cross the O'neal bridge , you may be picked up for "I thought I saw you swerve" and given an alcohol blow test. You pass, with 0.01  but the azzhole  cop, just fresh out of Iraq, decides to throw you in the Florence jail overnight anyway. - it happened

Before I end , I will say, I have no idea why, when I started to add to the first paragraph of this post, it decided to make the letters twice the size and in bold print. After 2 gin and tonics, I can't figure it out and for the most part don't really give a damm , but I apologize for it being that way.

 

If you leave Sheffield at 2AM getting off of work, and cross the O'neal bridge , you may be picked up for "I thought I saw you swerve" and given an alcohol blow test. You pass, with 0.01  but the azzhole  cop, just fresh out of Iraq, decides to throw you in the Florence jail overnight anyway. - it happened

_____________________

 

A couple of years ago our daughter was the DD for her brother and his friend. They went to a couple of bars in Florence then they went over to Sheffield to the one that used to be in the hotel. (can't remember the name) in the parking lot as they were getting out of the car the friend (who was drunk) fell. As they were helping him up a two LEO's come up and ask for their ID's. They gave him their ID's. All of them were 21 or over. He ask who the driver was and my daughter spoke up and said she was. He said he smelled alcohol on her. She told him she had not been drinking at all. He told her he was taking her in for PI. She was actually the only one that was sober! She ask to have a breathalyzer test and he refused. He said he could smell it and that was enough. She had to spend the whole night in jail. This is a girl that had never even been in the principals office when she was in school. She was a straight A student in college at the time. She was terrified. We had to hire a lawyer and go to court. It was thrown out, but it didn't change the fact of what she had to go through that night. Also, she was in the Hard Times! It was horrible...

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:

 Over and over his constitutional rights were violated and once again he was told the same thing so many of us have heard over and over: that we must sacrifice our liberty for safety.

 

Hmmmm........seems we've been hearing this same mantra from Bloomberg and company.  Do you consider them a bunch of "Barneys" as well?

------------------------

 

Hoob,

 

I direct you to the Patriot Act. Bloomberg is not making federal laws. Our constitutional rights have been being violating by that act since 2002. It was further trampled on by FISA amendments (which gave NSA its real power) in 2008.

 

Where you been? Bloomberg is the least of our worries.

 

I hope this young man sues. Every day we are seeing more and more videos of LEO overstepping and we have to put a stop to it.


And I direct you to go back and review words that have come out of the mouths of democratic politicians and powerful liberals regarding the abolishment of the 2nd amendment for "safety" reasons.  My question is valid and a honest one at that. 

Hoob,

 

I am not in favor of any law that denies my Constitutional rights. Regardless of what party those that would try and take them belong to. The problem I have with the kind of statement you made is that it seems to ignore the elephant in the room to point out the mouse in the corner. 

Wow, Im just reading about this bottle water arrest.  What a joke, officers are lucky they didnt get themselves run over acting like idiots.  Then they had the nerve to say this:

 

"This whole unfortunate incident could have been avoided had the occupants complied with law enforcement requests," 


How were those girls supposed to know they were actually law enforcement officers rushing their vehicle late at night - all out of uniform.  Heads should roll for this one as well......


http://www.dailyprogress.com/n...32-0019bb30f31a.html



Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

Hoob,

 

I am not in favor of any law that denies my Constitutional rights. Regardless of what party those that would try and take them belong to. The problem I have with the kind of statement you made is that it seems to ignore the elephant in the room to point out the mouse in the corner. 

======

As well as his lieing azz statement that the Democrats are trying to nulify the 2nd Amendment. Just make stuff up , tell enough lies to enough people and the simple minded will believe it.

I just watched that video a couple times-and yes, while the cop did walk all over the kid's rights-the kid most definitely DID provoke the cop or at least give the cop reason to be suspicious by making a federal case out of what was a simple instruction.  

 

I've been through plenty of checkpoints and if ya just do like the cop says (passing the attitude test), it only takes a couple minutes and you're on your way again.

The kid is a lawyer.  Yes, he did provoke the LEO into revealing a side that indicates he should not be in law enforcement.  If, he doesn't know that the Constitution and Bill of Rights can't be suspended, he has no place in law enforcement -- meter maid, perhaps!

 

Yes, under certain circumstances, writ of habeas corpus may be suspended.  Lincoln tried to, but SCOTUS over ruled him.. If the Civil War isn't sufficient reason, little is.

From the kids view,  sometimes it just seemed like the thing to do.

An old story I was told;  the police was doing a field sobriety test.  The guy had to count, stand on one foot and other stuff.  The police then took his index fingers and touched each side of his(the cops) nose and asked can you do this.  The man said, "I knew I was gonna get in trouble, he then took his index fingers and put them on each side of the cops nose.

One thing I found pretty "telling" was when the second cop started looking into his car he told the first cop "he is innocent and knows his rights" . (That was right before the "O S**t !" moment when they spotted the camera).

SO, it seems to me the cops DID know they were in the wrong, and the kid was in the right , but continued to trample his Constitutional rights anyway.
I repeat THE COPS KNEW THEY WERE WRONG BUT CONTINUED THE HARASSMENT ANYWAY.

 

Ignorance of the law is no excuse but it is one thing, but KNOWINGLY CONTINUING TO TEAR UP HIS CAR WHEN THEY ALREADY KNEW HE WAS INNOCENT  shows the whole bunch should be fired.

Originally Posted by Road Puppy:

I just watched that video a couple times-and yes, while the cop did walk all over the kid's rights-the kid most definitely DID provoke the cop or at least give the cop reason to be suspicious by making a federal case out of what was a simple instruction.  

 

I've been through plenty of checkpoints and if ya just do like the cop says (passing the attitude test), it only takes a couple minutes and you're on your way again.

===============

I think the kid baited the cop, not provoked him, unless insisting your rights be upheld is provoking a cop.  I believe the whole intent of the kid was to test whether or not Cops were violating people's rights, and in this case, the cops were weighed in the balance and found wanting.

I hope this video goes viral, the cops get canned, and the kid sues for the damages the dog did to his car.

Originally Posted by Road Puppy:

I just watched that video a couple times-and yes, while the cop did walk all over the kid's rights-the kid most definitely DID provoke the cop or at least give the cop reason to be suspicious by making a federal case out of what was a simple instruction.  

 

I've been through plenty of checkpoints and if ya just do like the cop says (passing the attitude test), it only takes a couple minutes and you're on your way again.


+1! When dealing with ANY 'authority figure', attitude is EVERYTHING.  I pulled a lady over one sunny Sunday afternoon for running a STOP sign.  No biggie.  I had already decided to simply give her a verbal warning (officer discretion).  When I asked for her DL and advised her of what she had done, she responded with 'What **** STOP sign?!'.  Back in a minute, ma'am.......

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Road Puppy:

I just watched that video a couple times-and yes, while the cop did walk all over the kid's rights-the kid most definitely DID provoke the cop or at least give the cop reason to be suspicious by making a federal case out of what was a simple instruction.  

 

I've been through plenty of checkpoints and if ya just do like the cop says (passing the attitude test), it only takes a couple minutes and you're on your way again.

===============

I think the kid baited the cop, not provoked him, unless insisting your rights be upheld is provoking a cop.  I believe the whole intent of the kid was to test whether or not Cops were violating people's rights, and in this case, the cops were weighed in the balance and found wanting.

I hope this video goes viral, the cops get canned, and the kid sues for the damages the dog did to his car.

He did bait the officer.  In TN, the roadblocks have to be announced beforehand (I never understood that).  IMO, he went through the roadbloack with the intention of doing what he did.

 

Problem is, he didnt do anything wrong.  Could he have been more 'cooperative'?  Yep.  Was he required to?  Thats the question at hand.  The officer never even asked if he had been drinking.  Never came up.  Had he, and the guy continued to be uncooperative, then I might lean more toward the officers side.  But this was all about the guy not rolling his window all the way down and asking if he was being detained.  It was about him challenging authority.  

 

The officer not liking his attitude was the officers issue. Attitude might be the difference between getting a ticket or not, but it shouldnt mean the difference between being afforded your constitutional rights or not.  The officer should have been the bigger person and handled it more professionally, then the kid would look like an idiot for baiting them.  Want to see a good example of how to handle being baited - 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T4oP5gnaIY

 

While the officers in Florence might have been in the wrong to detain him, especially once they determined he had done no wrong, they did a good job of handling the situation and explaining why they were interacting with him.  Even when he refused to be searched, they didnt get agitated with him or cocky about him challenging their authority.  Had the officer in TN gone this route, we would not even be discussing this issue.

Originally Posted by Capt James T:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Road Puppy:

I just watched that video a couple times-and yes, while the cop did walk all over the kid's rights-the kid most definitely DID provoke the cop or at least give the cop reason to be suspicious by making a federal case out of what was a simple instruction.  

 

I've been through plenty of checkpoints and if ya just do like the cop says (passing the attitude test), it only takes a couple minutes and you're on your way again.

===============

I think the kid baited the cop, not provoked him, unless insisting your rights be upheld is provoking a cop.  I believe the whole intent of the kid was to test whether or not Cops were violating people's rights, and in this case, the cops were weighed in the balance and found wanting.

I hope this video goes viral, the cops get canned, and the kid sues for the damages the dog did to his car.

He did bait the officer.  In TN, the roadblocks have to be announced beforehand (I never understood that).  IMO, he went through the roadbloack with the intention of doing what he did.

 

Problem is, he didnt do anything wrong.  Could he have been more 'cooperative'?  Yep.  Was he required to?  Thats the question at hand.  The officer never even asked if he had been drinking.  Never came up.  Had he, and the guy continued to be uncooperative, then I might lean more toward the officers side.  But this was all about the guy not rolling his window all the way down and asking if he was being detained.  It was about him challenging authority.  

 

The officer not liking his attitude was the officers issue. Attitude might be the difference between getting a ticket or not, but it shouldnt mean the difference between being afforded your constitutional rights or not.  The officer should have been the bigger person and handled it more professionally, then the kid would look like an idiot for baiting them.  Want to see a good example of how to handle being baited - 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T4oP5gnaIY

 

While the officers in Florence might have been in the wrong to detain him, especially once they determined he had done no wrong, they did a good job of handling the situation and explaining why they were interacting with him.  Even when he refused to be searched, they didnt get agitated with him or cocky about him challenging their authority.  Had the officer in TN gone this route, we would not even be discussing this issue.

=============

Very interesting Florence video, but it begs some questions in my mind 

> Why did the police get a call about a person walking around doing legal things ?

> Why did the cops even bother to stop and "talk to" a person walking around doing legal things 

>IWhy would the state law prescribe something to be legal , and then cops concern themselves with that ?

 

The Florence cops did a real good job in that video, and the kid was obviously baiting (testing) them. Only problem I can see was whoever took the call , when told that there was someone walking around with a gun strapped to their hip should have said "so what?" .

Cops usually check out calls, if time allows, to cover all bases. Several years ago, the NRA was one of the first to warn of over militarization of the police.  To start, at the federal level, only the FBI and Marshal's Service should be allowed to form SWAT teams.  Department of Agriculture SWAT teams -- really.

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by dogsoldier0513:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

Well Dire, I agree, but what bothers me most is it seems that every day we are seeing some out of control cops proving they think they are above the law....

 I'm curious: Would you include AG Holder among these 'out of control cops'?

====================

No, I doubt if you, me , or anybody we know will have reason to come across AG Holder, as I (hope) that none of us are exchanging guns for drugs in Mexico. Of course there are two simple solutions to that entire problem - 1> end the "war on drugs" , 2> vote out Sessions and Shelby who BOTH voted to keep it easy for criminals and psychopaths to buy guns.  (if you voted for either, then YOU , my friend, are part of the problem)

> On the other hand, I have already had experience with out of control cops, and my bet is that most people you and I know either already have, will have, or know someone who has or will.

Cases in point : 

  If you happen to be on the way to buy a car in Tenn (maybe other places),and you are planning on paying cash (like most people sell one to one cars)  and the cops learn you have a lot of cash, they not only can , but will seize that money claiming it could have been used in a drug transaction . - That happened

If your underage daughter goes to buy some bottled water at a local convenience store, and a cop sees her , she may be arrested . - That happened

If you are sitting peacefully on a college campus in protest of something, you may be sprayed with pepper spray that is classified by the army as a chemical weapon - it happened

Worse yet, if you are peacefully, but loudly protesting on a college campus in Ohio, you may just be shot - it happened

If you are driving in a certain parrish in La, and you change lanes on the interstate, you may be pulled over for "improper lane change"  and your car seized by the police dept because it looks like it may have been used in transporting drugs. - it has happened, but last I heard the court made the county quit.

If you leave Sheffield at 2AM getting off of work, and cross the O'neal bridge , you may be picked up for "I thought I saw you swerve" and given an alcohol blow test. You pass, with 0.01  but the azzhole  cop, just fresh out of Iraq, decides to throw you in the Florence jail overnight anyway. - it happened

Before I end , I will say, I have no idea why, when I started to add to the first paragraph of this post, it decided to make the letters twice the size and in bold print. After 2 gin and tonics, I can't figure it out and for the most part don't really give a damm , but I apologize for it being that way.

 

 

 

Here's one guy who came in to "indirect" contact with Holder...

 

He lost...

 

Guns tracked by the ATF have been found at crime scenes on both sides of the Mexico–United States border, and the scene whereUnited States Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed. The "gunwalking" operations became public in the aftermath of Terry's murder.[2] Dissenting ATF agents came forward to Congress in response.[16][17] According to Humberto Benítez Treviño, former Mexican Attorney General and chair of the justice committee in the Chamber of Deputies, related firearms have been found at numerous crime scenes in Mexico where at least 150 Mexican civilians were maimed and killed.

As a result of a dispute over the release of Justice Department documents related to the scandal, Attorney General Eric Holder became the first sitting member of the Cabinet of the United States to be held in contempt of Congress on June 28, 2012.[19][20] Earlier that month, President Obama had invoked executive privilege for the first time in his presidency over the same documents.


"Gunwalking", or "letting guns walk", was a tactic of the Arizona Field Office of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). They ran a series of "gunwalking" sting operations[2][3]between 2006[4] and 2011[2][5] in the Tucson and Phoenix area where the ATF "purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegalstraw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders."[6]These operations were done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States.[7]

The stated goal of allowing these purchases was to continue to track the firearms as they were transferred to higher-level traffickers and key figures in Mexican cartels, with the expectation that this would lead to their arrests and the dismantling of the cartels.[6][8][9] The tactic was questioned during the operations by a number of people, including ATF field agents and cooperating licensed gun dealers.[10][11][12][13][14] During Operation Fast and Furious, by far the largest "gunwalking" probe, the ATF monitored the sale of about 2,000[1]:203[15] firearms, of which only 710 were recovered as of February 2012.[1]:203 A number of straw purchasers have been arrested and indicted; however, as of October 2011, none of the targeted high-level cartel figures have been arrested.[6]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal


Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Capt James T:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Road Puppy:

I just watched that video a couple times-and yes, while the cop did walk all over the kid's rights-the kid most definitely DID provoke the cop or at least give the cop reason to be suspicious by making a federal case out of what was a simple instruction.  

 

 

===============

I think the kid baited the cop, not provoked him, " .

----------------------------

OK. Better choice of words. 

Originally Posted by Jobe:

Police are getting out of control everywhere.

 

Third Amendment Violated? Nev. Police Allegedly Invade Family’s Home to Use During SWAT Call, Arrest Two for ‘Obstruction’ When Owner Refuses

 

http://www.theblaze.com/storie...-when-owner-refuses/

For those of you who dont like the Blaze - how about USA Today - 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...lice-column/2496689/

The officer was an idiot. The driver was an idiot. It was DUI checkpoint. The whole purpose is to determine if drivers are drunk. The Supreme Court stands behind this. The officer had every right to have him exit the car, let alone have him roll down the window. Scotus even thought giving breath tests to motorists is acceptable. SCOTUS has also ruled that the police may remove drivers from vehicles during a traffic stop. So there you have it. The officer acted in an unprofessional manner. He did things He shouldn't have done. He will face whatever punishment his bosses decide is appropriate. Maybe the driver will sue him? I don't know. 

 

As for the Nevada incident. That was ridiculous. I hope they are no longer officers. Nothing about that situation was right. 

 

Now for the militarization of police. I don't see a police state. I see random headlines for stupid things cops do. Not everyone hired as a Leo needs that job. Some are not physically capable, some are not mentally capable, and some are unethical and down right criminal. The good officers do their best to weed out the bad ones. Sure, swat teams are used when it isn't necessary. Do the patrol guys like it? No. But most times, it is done to prevent the the loss of life. The bottom line is that as criminal enterprise evolves, so will the police. Policing can be a very ugly job. The public will most likely not like what they see. Please keep in mind that the men and women who have families at home, to whom they want to return, and have a split second to make decisions that we all have the privilege to armchair quarterback for years to come. 

 

Originally Posted by seeweed:

I am beginning to think a police state is not as far fetched as you may think

 

It's not getting any better under Barack. He has given himself the pwer to be judge, jury, and executioner of American citizens, signed the NDAA, and increased gov't spying on american citizens. As someone who was against the Iraq war and against the majority of the Patriot Act Barack has been a huge dispappointment in the area of civil liberties. Just another example of how there is very little difference outside of lip service between repubs and dems.

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

I am beginning to think a police state is not as far fetched as you may think

 

It's not getting any better under Barack. He has given himself the pwer to be judge, jury, and executioner of American citizens, signed the NDAA, and increased gov't spying on american citizens. As someone who was against the Iraq war and against the majority of the Patriot Act Barack has been a huge dispappointment in the area of civil liberties. Just another example of how there is very little difference outside of lip service between repubs and dems.

=======

From looking at the armbands on these people, Obama had nothing to do with this. Most of the legislation stripping people of their Constitutional rights, and the formation of the police state is at the local or state level.,  Far as I know, no one has called out the National Guard to contain peaceful demonstrations , and kill peaceful demonstrators  since the Nixon era..

More photos from that peaceful rally.

 

For more photos, visit www.facebook.com/StyleWeekly - SCOTT ELMQUIST

 

 

 

 

I had seen another picture of the officers seeweed posted. They were the only four I saw, if there were more they were well hidden. In the picture I saw they were high up on the steps no where near the crowd. They were where they should be if something had gone wrong and other officers couldn't have kept the crowd out of the courthouse. I'll try to find that picture. 

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post

×
×
×
×