Skip to main content

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

Replies sorted oldest to newest

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 *******************.

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. 

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?" .

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. 

Originally Posted by seeweed:
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..

No he hasn't called out the national guard. All Barack has done is increase the NSAspying on American citizens, tapped the phone lines of the press, and used drones to kill American citizens. However, I am sure you are perfectly fine with that since he is a democrat. If a republican had done those things you would be all up in arms. i just can't fathom ho so,e of you n this board can be so loyal to a political party that you completely discard all individual thinking and blindly agree with everything they do. 

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
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..

No he hasn't called out the national guard. All Barack has done is increase the NSAspying on American citizens, tapped the phone lines of the press, and used drones to kill American citizens. However, I am sure you are perfectly fine with that since he is a democrat. If a republican had done those things you would be all up in arms. i just can't fathom ho so,e of you n this board can be so loyal to a political party that you completely discard all individual thinking and blindly agree with everything they do. 

It WAS done by a Republican. The whole thing was started by W Bush. Didn't like it then, don't like it now.

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
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..

No he hasn't called out the national guard. All Barack has done is increase the NSAspying on American citizens, tapped the phone lines of the press, and used drones to kill American citizens. However, I am sure you are perfectly fine with that since he is a democrat. If a republican had done those things you would be all up in arms. i just can't fathom ho so,e of you n this board can be so loyal to a political party that you completely discard all individual thinking and blindly agree with everything they do. 

It WAS done by a Republican. The whole thing was started by W Bush. Didn't like it then, don't like it now.

Barack has expanded it even further. If he is the saint and savior that you claim him to be then why hasn't it been stopped? Barack spoke out against illegal wiretaps during his campaign yet they have been used even MORE on AmericaN citizens under his watch. Do not try to blame this on Bush or any repub. this is happening under your messiah Barrack and the buck stops with him now!

 

you are so brainwashed by your political party that you can't bring yourself to say anything negative about them. 

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
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..

No he hasn't called out the national guard. All Barack has done is increase the NSAspying on American citizens, tapped the phone lines of the press, and used drones to kill American citizens. However, I am sure you are perfectly fine with that since he is a democrat. If a republican had done those things you would be all up in arms. i just can't fathom ho so,e of you n this board can be so loyal to a political party that you completely discard all individual thinking and blindly agree with everything they do. 

It WAS done by a Republican. The whole thing was started by W Bush. Didn't like it then, don't like it now.

Barack has expanded it even further. If he is the saint and savior that you claim him to be then why hasn't it been stopped? Barack spoke out against illegal wiretaps during his campaign yet they have been used even MORE on AmericaN citizens under his watch. Do not try to blame this on Bush or any repub. this is happening under your messiah Barrack and the buck stops with him now!

 

you are so brainwashed by your political party that you can't bring yourself to say anything negative about them. 

no, you are an illiterate idiot .If you read my post I stated that I didn't like it then OR NOW> 

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
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..

No he hasn't called out the national guard. All Barack has done is increase the NSAspying on American citizens, tapped the phone lines of the press, and used drones to kill American citizens. However, I am sure you are perfectly fine with that since he is a democrat. If a republican had done those things you would be all up in arms. i just can't fathom ho so,e of you n this board can be so loyal to a political party that you completely discard all individual thinking and blindly agree with everything they do. 

It WAS done by a Republican. The whole thing was started by W Bush. Didn't like it then, don't like it now.

Barack has expanded it even further. If he is the saint and savior that you claim him to be then why hasn't it been stopped? Barack spoke out against illegal wiretaps during his campaign yet they have been used even MORE on AmericaN citizens under his watch. Do not try to blame this on Bush or any repub. this is happening under your messiah Barrack and the buck stops with him now!

 

you are so brainwashed by your political party that you can't bring yourself to say anything negative about them. 

no, you are an illiterate idiot .If you read my post I stated that I didn't like it then OR NOW> 

I read your post. You had to blame on a repub instead of admitting that Barack is a hypocrite for going back on one of the very things he campaigned against. If you think there is a big difference in repubs and dems then you probably think professional 'rastlin is real.

seeweed if you look hard enough you can find images of swat teams anywhere. Most, like the one you posted, are designed for that half truth knee jerk response. Answer this for me. If a few people with bombs and guns came to that same peaceful rally and started mowing people down, would you still say it was oppression if the swat guys took action. See, where you see oppression, I see a group of men willing to do what is necessary to protect protect everyone, including protesters. Guess I'm a glass half full guy. 

I looked at my cell phone bill.  I had 50 or 60 calls and text messages, my wife had about 350.  Some people have more, most probably have less.  I have a land line phone, it has maybe 100 calls.  There are millions(200?) of phones in use in America, multiply this number by the average number of calls on each line.  Does anyone really think the government can monitor this many calls?

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

I looked at my cell phone bill.  I had 50 or 60 calls and text messages, my wife had about 350.  Some people have more, most probably have less.  I have a land line phone, it has maybe 100 calls.  There are millions(200?) of phones in use in America, multiply this number by the average number of calls on each line.  Does anyone really think the government can monitor this many calls?

Yes - computing power is way beyond the comprehension of many.  The government does not have someone 'listening' to every call.  Computers monitor them and Im sure there are key words and an algorithm that flags certain numbers based on the content of the call, text or email.  

 

Kindof like looking in your house - they cant have someone looking in everyones house at all times - does that mean we should give them the right to look into your house without a warrant if your house is the one they decide to look at today via those algorithms?

Probably shot by 9mm, they have a reputation penetrating a target without expanding if the bullets are FMJ.  This incident shouts for intervention by the state AG's office. 

 

BTW, the Soviets were the first to intercept phone calls that included certain words.  Legend has it that the FBI recorded hours of teen age girls talking endlessly about nothing, as they are prone to do.  Then, the FBI would insert  the words and play over the DC phone lines.  Subsequently, there was a rash of suicides among KGB analysts!

The incident reminds me of the Amadou Diallo shooting in NYC. Four plainclothes police fired 41 shots at him. He wasn't wanted and was holding out his wallet, which the police stated they thought was a firearm. 

 

Both incidents speak of poor fire discipline -- poor training.  Soldiers are court martialed for such actions. 

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

To Direstraits,  You are bringing up something that I think is a problem.  Many times police fire many shots at an individual, they don't hit them all the time, and too many bystanders are hit.  Police need better training.

 

There are studies that show when a civilian legitimately fires his weapon, innocent bystanders are much less likely to be harmed, than if a LEO does the same. 

 

Generally, poor fire discipline is a result of poor training. And, poor training is an indicator of incompetence or corruption within the department. 

 

 

 

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 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/

 

Seeweed,

 

Not sure why this case in Virginia bothers me more than most of the others we hear of, but I have been following it since this post.  Some new news has come out - the Special Agent in Charge of the 'raid' on these college girls, John Taylor, had been recently 'reassigned' because the Director believed he was 'no longer capable of leading the agents' at his previous post.  So he was moved to a new post to lead the agents there

 

After the charges were finally dropped, the ABC board stated they would conduct a 'second' investigation after the 'first' internal investigation found no wrong doing by the officers - only to follow up and say there wasn't an initial 'first' investigation to begin with.

 

In addition, the local press has listed a LONG list of internal policies that were not followed by the agents on scene, here are a few -

 

(1) Policy states officers can only draw their weapon "when circumstances cause the agent to reasonably believe that it may be necessary to use the weapon." - see below for why the officer didn't ever have the justification to use the weapon.

 

(2) Updated in 2007, the agency’s use-of-force policy advises agents not to discharge weapons at a moving vehicle unless "a person in the vehicle poses an immediate threat to the agent or another person with the use of deadly force by means other than the vehicle." - threat with vehicle does not justify deadly force be used against the person in the vehicle

 

(3) The policy states "an agent threatened by an oncoming vehicle should move out of its path instead of discharging a firearm at it or any of its occupants." - why the officer never had the justification to draw his weapon in the first place

 

http://www.timesdispatch.com/n...e0-001a4bcf6878.html

 

The women called 911 during the incident and were speaking with the dispatcher immediately after.  The dispatcher instructed them to stop for the pursuing agents.  The dispatcher then informed Special Agent Taylor (who was one of the seven agents involved) that they thought the women honestly didn't know they were police officers when the fled, but that did not deter Taylor, the Special Agent In Charge, from arresting the college student for fleeing and hitting two of his officers.

 

Even after the DA dropped the charges, Special Agent Taylor sent an email to the other six agents saying "“While we may disagree with his [the DA's] decision, we all know that it is his decision to make......Thanks for all of your efforts during the operation in Charlottesville.”

 

http://www.dailyprogress.com/n...f31a.html?mode=story

 

 

 

 

Last edited by Capt James T

The police admitted policy was violated numerous times.  Yet, no actions, except the reassignment of one of the lead officers was done.  At the least, the agents should received mandatory re-training.  Their errors should be explained to them in a drill sergeant way.  Plus, a few days of mandatory suspension for the most egregious actions such as pointing a firearm at the women.  Plus, Taylor remains fully clueless about his actions.  The women should sue for damages, complete removal of the arrest record from all files and a public apology from the agency.  Old Army method for training a mule.  First, hit the mule between the eyes with a 2X4 (the bone there is very hard).  That's to get the mule's attention.  Then, the training begins.

There's a new disturbing case in Florida.  Police and federal marshals did a warrantless sweep of an apartment complex. While, they were looking for a child molester, there was no child involved and the danger was not imminent for any innocents.

 

Its long, so I will only post the first of four pages and a link to the rest.

 

"Lyons: Police raid felt like home invasion

 

After leaving her operating room scrub nurse duties at Sarasota's Doctors Hospital on Wednesday, Louise Goldsberry went to her Hidden Lake Village apartment.

 

Her boyfriend came over, and after dinner — about 8 p.m. — Goldsberry went to her kitchen sink to wash some dishes.

 

That's when her boyfriend, Craig Dorris — a manager for a security alarm company — heard her scream and saw her drop to the floor.

 

Goldsberry, 59, said she had looked up from the sink to see a man “wearing a hunting vest.”

He was aiming a gun at her face, with a red light pinpointing her.

“I screamed and screamed,” she said.

 

But she also scrambled across the floor to her bedroom and grabbed her gun, a five-shot .38-caliber revolver. Goldsberry has a concealed weapons permit and says the gun has made her feel safer living alone. But she felt anything but safe when she heard a man yelling to open the door.

He was claiming to be a police officer, but the man she had seen looked to her more like an armed thug. Her boyfriend, Dorris, was calmer, and yelled back that he wanted to see some ID.

But the man just demanded they open the door. The actual words, the couple say, were, “We're the f------ police; open the f------ door.”

 

Dorris said he moved away from the door, afraid bullets were about to rip through.

Goldsberry was terrified but thinking it just might really be the police. Except, she says she wondered, would police talk that way? She had never been arrested or even come close. She couldn't imagine why police would be there or want to come in. But even if they did, why would they act like that at her apartment? It didn't seem right."

 
After this fiasco, the federal marshal made the comment:
 
"I feel bad for her,” Wiggins conceded, finally. “But at the same time, I had to reasonably believe the bad guy was in her house based on what they were doing.”

 

Goldsberry wasn't arrested or shot despite pointing a gun at a cop, so Wiggins said, “She sure shouldn't be going to the press.”

 

Federal marshals are supposed to be the cream of the crop, next to FBI agents.  First, they and the local police, after securing the apartment complex, use SWAT team tactics and gear to violently enter apartments.  They shout obscenities and insults to innocent people  in an unprofessional manner and expect to be obeyed without question.  I understand being hyper and adrenalin flowing in such situations.  Which is why the situation should never have happened.  Local police, in regular uniforms (with bullet resistant vests), should have knocked and explained the situation.   Most reasonable people would allow the police entrance if treated in a decent manner.  SWAT should be kept in reserve, not as the first tool used. 

 

Worse, the federal marshal was clueless, just as the Virginian officer was.  The only method to teach the police is a lawsuit -- preferably by all the apartment dwellers.  The marshal's comment alone should be worth several thousand dollars in reparations..   

 
Originally Posted by direstraits:

 

Goldsberry wasn't arrested or shot despite pointing a gun at a cop, so Wiggins said, “She sure shouldn't be going to the press.”

HAHAHAHA, that is so funny I'm crying on the floor laughing!  She shouldn't be going to the press because she didn't get shot or arrested for pointing a gun at a cop THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN IN HER HOME!  She had a split second to make a decision whether someone was an officer or not based on the fact that they were banging on the door yelling 'police' and 'open the f****** door'!  Where was there warrant to enter her home?  The fact that they refused to open the door was reason for them to suspect they had the right apartment and force their way in?  How about, without a warrant, they didn't have to let you in.  And I sure wouldn't go to the door after seeing someone sneak around my window with a gun.

 

Originally Posted by Capt James T:

Dire - did the lead agent get reassigned again?  I didn't see that anywhere.  The reassignment I was referring to took place before this happened.  The agent in charge had been previously relieved of his command in a different location.  I missed that he had been reassigned again......

Capt,

 

Sorry, I assumed the info pasted 10 hours ago by you alluded to the present fiasco.  "Some new news has come out - the Special Agent in Charge of the 'raid' on these college girls, John Taylor, had been recently 'reassigned' because the Director believed he was 'no longer capable of leading the agents' at his previous post.  So he was moved to a new post to lead the agents there"

 

I guess they just shuffled the idiot in the deck and hoped for the best and got the worst.

Originally Posted by Capt James T:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

 

Goldsberry wasn't arrested or shot despite pointing a gun at a cop, so Wiggins said, “She sure shouldn't be going to the press.”

HAHAHAHA, that is so funny I'm crying on the floor laughing!  She shouldn't be going to the press because she didn't get shot or arrested for pointing a gun at a cop THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN IN HER HOME!  She had a split second to make a decision whether someone was an officer or not based on the fact that they were banging on the door yelling 'police' and 'open the f****** door'!  Where was there warrant to enter her home?  The fact that they refused to open the door was reason for them to suspect they had the right apartment and force their way in?  How about, without a warrant, they didn't have to let you in.  And I sure wouldn't go to the door after seeing someone sneak around my window with a gun.

 

Definitely, a law suit should be started.  Against the federal marshals service and the local police.  By agency, and by idiot.  Its the only way they learn.

 

While the cited incident isn’t the best example of police over use of military force, that it appears in the WSJ is very significant.  A tide is turning against use of such force.  Read the Comments section to determine how disaffected people are.  Except for their editorial section, the WSJ isn’t really very conservative. The paper is the major business information newspaper for the US. 

 

"Rise of the Warrior Cop

Is it time to reconsider the militarization of American policing?

 

On Jan. 4 of last year, a local narcotics strike force conducted a raid
on the Ogden, Utah, home of Matthew David Stewart at 8:40 p.m. The 12
officers were acting on a tip from Mr. Stewart's former girlfriend, who
said that he was growing marijuana in his basement. Mr. Stewart awoke,
naked, to the sound of a battering ram taking down his door. Thinking
that he was being invaded by criminals, as he later claimed, he grabbed
his 9-millimeter Beretta pistol.

 

The police say that they knocked and identified themselves, though Mr. Stewart and his neighbors said they heard no such announcement. Mr. Stewart fired 31 rounds, the police more than 250. Six of the officers were wounded, and Officer Jared Francom was killed. Mr. Stewart himself was shot twice before he was arrested. He was charged with several crimes, including the murder of Officer Francom.

 

The police found 16 small marijuana plants in Mr. Stewart's basement. There was no evidence that Mr. Stewart, a U.S. military veteran with no prior criminal record, was selling marijuana. Mr. Stewart's father said that his son suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and may have smoked the marijuana to self-medicate.

 

Early this year, the Ogden city council heard complaints from dozens of citizens about the way drug warrants are served in the city. As for Mr. Stewart, his trial was scheduled for next April, and prosecutors were seeking the death penalty. But after losing a hearing last May on the legality of the search warrant, Mr. Stewart hanged himself in his jail cell.

 

The police tactics at issue in the Stewart case are no anomaly. Since the 1960s, in response to a range of perceived threats, law-enforcement agencies across the U.S., at every level of government, have been blurring the line between police officer and soldier. Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment—from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers—American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield. The war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the U.S. scene: the warrior cop—armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties.

 

The acronym SWAT stands for Special Weapons and Tactics. Such police units are trained in methods similar to those used by the special forces in the military. They learn to break into homes with battering rams and to use incendiary devices called flashbang grenades, which are designed to blind and deafen anyone nearby. Their usual aim is to "clear" a building—that is, to remove any threats and distractions (including pets) and to subdue the occupants as quickly as possible."

 

More at: http://online.wsj.com/article/...rticleTabs%3Darticle

 

 

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

the "war on drugs" ... another failure of a policy, put forth by the rt. wing. they've never learned from any mistake they've made. and yet, it's the liberals who "follow blindly"....

at what point does the rt. wing have to accept they have lost touch with reality and try to piece the party back together.

 

You need to lay off the Rogaine "Baldy"...

Looks like it's only growing "fuzz"  on your peanut brain!

A cotton seed looks more promising...

 

The one thing that I am most disappointed in , both in President Clinton and in President Obama, is that they have not stopped the idiotic "war on drugs". 

"Cities have turned into jungles

And corruption is standing at hand

The police force is watching the people

and the people just don't understand

We don't know how to mind our own business

'Cause the whole world's gotta be just like us

Now we are fighting a war over  there,

no matter who's the winner, we can't pay the cost"

Steppenwolf = The Monster.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...PDPARpIV37CP8E7uKLou

 

 

Instead of trying to make the other guy look bad in this war on drugs, lets all come together and figure out something that might help,  Lock em up and throw away the key  ain't working.  I used to think I had all the answers, but, I don't have any.  I have been personally touched by this problem and I would listen to anything that would help.  Please give suggestions.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Instead of trying to make the other guy look bad in this war on drugs, lets all come together and figure out something that might help,  Lock em up and throw away the key  ain't working.  I used to think I had all the answers, but, I don't have any.  I have been personally touched by this problem and I would listen to anything that would help.  Please give suggestions.

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

Narcotics are actually very inexpensive, the high cost is from them being on the black market . 

That means that once someone is hooked, they have to do whatever is necessary to pay the high price of street drugs, be it prostitution , or holding up a liquor store or whatever.

I think we should put the drugs in the drugstores, (drugs, drugstores- kinda seems to go together), and quit monitoring how many scripts a doctor can write for those things.

So, an addict can go to a dr, get a script for enough of whatever his dope of choice is to be able to function , and go to a drug store and get his drugs at a reasonable rate. Most addicts can function pretty well, and even earn a living if they just didn't have to spend it all building some pusher a Mr T jewelry set.

So, that could turn a lot of addicts into productive citizens, and stop a lot of street crime in one blow. Sounds like a win-win to me.

(BTW, I didn't just dream this up, some European countries have already tried this and that is the result).

Marijuana should just plane be d-criminalized out and out. Quit locking some poor head up because he got caught mellowing out on some good weed.

It cost over $45,000 a year to keep somebody locked up in the pen. Seems there are a lot of things that money could be better used for than locking up people for using.

Now, the first thing some people are going to say is "no - "they" will abuse it " . Well, there probably would be some abuse, and some people are going to overdose legal or not, but like you said, Nixon's war on drugs has never worked, so try going the other way.

I am for a step-by-step program, not a massive program that will generate problems of its own.  Legalize marijuana, even the newer stronger strains, and treat it like alcohol and cigarettes.  Allow those over 19 to buy the less strong and those over 21 the newer stronger weed.  Tax it and use the proceeds for anti-marijuana ads, like anti-smoking ads.  Selling to those from 18 to 20 should be treated as a misdemeanor for small amounts and a felony for larger amounts.  Selling to those 16 and under should be a serious felony for adults and supervised release for minors.

 

Use experience from that program to slowly decriminalize the rest and then legalize.

Originally Posted by direstraits:

I am for a step-by-step program, not a massive program that will generate problems of its own.  Legalize marijuana, even the newer stronger strains, and treat it like alcohol and cigarettes.  Allow those over 19 to buy the less strong and those over 21 the newer stronger weed.  Tax it and use the proceeds for anti-marijuana ads, like anti-smoking ads.  Selling to those from 18 to 20 should be treated as a misdemeanor for small amounts and a felony for larger amounts.  Selling to those 16 and under should be a serious felony for adults and supervised release for minors.

 

Use experience from that program to slowly decriminalize the rest and then legalize.

dire I'm not atall surprised at your stupidity.

Originally Posted by Quaildog:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

I am for a step-by-step program, not a massive program that will generate problems of its own.  Legalize marijuana, even the newer stronger strains, and treat it like alcohol and cigarettes.  Allow those over 19 to buy the less strong and those over 21 the newer stronger weed.  Tax it and use the proceeds for anti-marijuana ads, like anti-smoking ads.  Selling to those from 18 to 20 should be treated as a misdemeanor for small amounts and a felony for larger amounts.  Selling to those 16 and under should be a serious felony for adults and supervised release for minors.

 

Use experience from that program to slowly decriminalize the rest and then legalize.

dire I'm not atall surprised at your stupidity.

Quail I think most people are shocked at yours.

I recognize a failed program, like Prohibition. And, see no reason to spend more treasure, kill innocent people, ruin the lives of minor offenders, destroy the culture of Mexico, and decrease our own civil rights over a failed program. Cigarettes are more addictive than many drugs. Yet, with the proper program we've severely reduced the number of smokers, without outlawing nicotine.

 

As to QD, when he looks in the mirror, he sees the sad result of a failed life.

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
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..

No he hasn't called out the national guard. All Barack has done is increase the NSAspying on American citizens, tapped the phone lines of the press, and used drones to kill American citizens. However, I am sure you are perfectly fine with that since he is a democrat. If a republican had done those things you would be all up in arms. i just can't fathom ho so,e of you n this board can be so loyal to a political party that you completely discard all individual thinking and blindly agree with everything they do. 

It WAS done by a Republican. The whole thing was started by W Bush. Didn't like it then, don't like it now.

Barack has expanded it even further. If he is the saint and savior that you claim him to be then why hasn't it been stopped? Barack spoke out against illegal wiretaps during his campaign yet they have been used even MORE on AmericaN citizens under his watch. Do not try to blame this on Bush or any repub. this is happening under your messiah Barrack and the buck stops with him now!

 

you are so brainwashed by your political party that you can't bring yourself to say anything negative about them. 

______________________

 

I am appalled at the NSA spying. I was when it started under the Patriot Act and when it was given even more power with the FISA in 2006. I don't excuse President Obama for his part in it either. However, to try and pretend that this is not a Republican driven issue is disingenuous. If Republican voters had stood with Democrats when it started we would not be where we are today. Also, can you please show me where President Obama has added any new legislature  to the spying programs? Before you look I will tell you he has not. What is on the books and what the NSA is using to legitimize their actions was enable under the Bush administration. Democrats in congress fought to stop it and were told that they were being weak on terrorism and that if we didn't pass the laws that enable NSA to spy on us we would be attacked by terrorist again. 

 

I hold President Obama responsible for not keeping his promise to work to stop the Patriot Act. Yet, I don't see any Republicans in congress doing anything either. The only ones that are still working to overturn it are Democratic congressmen. 

 

This was started by Republicans and is still being supported by Republicans. Congress makes the laws and they are ultimately responsible for them. The Bush administration pushed and got what they wanted from congress but our elected officials are 100% responsible and it is heavily supported by Republicans and not Democrats in congress. 

Bad cops started this forum, let me ask something.  Yesterday (7-20) while listening to a right wing talk radio show, a caller, I assume she was a lefty, the host was friendly to her, said, "in the 6 months prior to Zimmerman shooting Martin, he had called law enforcement many times.  Sometimes about an animal, but every time it was a person, it was a black person.  Now this is in a majority black community.  Has anyone else heard anything about this.  If it was right wing talk radio, it had to be so, don't it?

Do you have a link so anyone interested can read and understand what you're posting about? I do know there has been lie after lie posted about zimmerman, such as the lie that he's a racist, and "profiled" martin, which was proved to be a lie and has ended up with msnbc being sued over said lie. The lie about how he stalked martin, when it was martin that went back looking for zimmerman to "sucker punch the cracka". I know they keep calling martin a "kid" and posting the photo of him at 11 or 12 years of age. I know they've lied and called zimmerman white. They've lied about zimmerman being kicked out of college for being a threat to other students, yet failed to mention the truth that martin had been kicked out of school numerous times.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Bad cops started this forum, let me ask something.  Yesterday (7-20) while listening to a right wing talk radio show, a caller, I assume she was a lefty, the host was friendly to her, said, "in the 6 months prior to Zimmerman shooting Martin, he had called law enforcement many times.  Sometimes about an animal, but every time it was a person, it was a black person.  Now this is in a majority black community.  Has anyone else heard anything about this.  If it was right wing talk radio, it had to be so, don't it?

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

I have heard on the news back when it was going on, that Zimmerman had in fact called police several times , always about a "black person" or "black suspect" . I don't remember it being stated that this was a black majority community, and don't know today if that is correct or not.

Zimmerman may be the boy that cried "wolf" too often- maybe the police kinda quit being too concerned about his calling in all the time, and quit responding in what Zimmerman considered a timely manner.

 

This article is a study showing Marijuana safe and effective as medicine for a lot of things. I believe (and maybe it's just me) that the Congressmen who are owned body and soul by big Pharma, (mostly R's but there are some D's as well) will never let what is a common herb become available legally , as it could actually help people, and not corporate interest.

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2...fective-as-medicine/

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

just curious cweed what are the symptoms internally  observed by someone smoking deweed?

==========

laughing at everything, and eating everything that is not tied down- especially salty stuff.

 --

edited to directly answer how it is internally observed :

Everything is funny, and your craving for salty snacks is overpowering.

Time seems to stand still , and the sense of touch is more pronounced, which means having sex is really outstanding !

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Quaildog:

just curious cweed what are the symptoms internally  observed by someone smoking deweed?

==========

laughing at everything, and eating everything that is not tied down- especially salty stuff.

 --

edited to directly answer how it is internally observed :

Everything is funny, and your craving for salty snacks is overpowering.

Time seems to stand still , and the sense of touch is more pronounced, which means having sex is really outstanding !

Everything huh? To include walking into the path of a semi or the prospect of being productive in any way?

I had heard that but what is possibly funny about not wiping one's azz.

Originally Posted by seeweed:

Barney just keeps on stepping on people's rights. Do we really have any any more ?

http://www.nydailynews.com/new...de-article-1.1390230

How long are we, the American people , willing to put up with these abuses ?

 


Wow, same glove on both women and searched the backside before searching the front (for lack of better description.)  Two of these cases have come out recently in TX. 

 

I think, before I let a man stick his finger in my backside, there would be a whole lot of officers holding me down and arresting me for resisting an officer.  They want to do a cavity search, escort me to the ER and let a DR do it.  Women should not be treated any differently. 

 

All because the 'officer' smelled pot (supposedly) - yet they didn't find any.  And that officer (the male) was only suspended. 

 

I know lots of 'good' officers, but the stories about the 'bad seeds' are getting more and more attention.  You LEO folks are going to have to work harder to police your own and keep these issues from happening.  Sounds like there were multiple officers at this scene that could have spoken up and said this isn't right. 

 

Sadly, the public is loosing faith in you quickly.

I think, before I let a man stick his finger in my backside, there would be a whole lot of officers holding me down and arresting me for resisting an officer.  They want to do a cavity search, escort me to the ER and let a DR do it.  Women should not be treated any differently. 

 

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

It was a female officer that searched them, and they don't have to take them to a hospital. Don't you ever watch "Jail"? As for me, ugh, you couldn't pay me enough to do a body search on any of them. Too, that dash cam catches a lot of things, and catching them shoving drugs "where the sun don't shine" happens all the time.

Originally Posted by wright35633:

http://www.wcvb.com/news/local...5iuu79z/-/index.html

 

For all the bad you drum up, there are many more shining examples. It's all in what you look for.


I agree, and unfortunately those shining examples don't usually get the press that the bad apples do. 

 

You have to admit, though, it seems we are hearing many more examples of these issues now than we did even 5 years ago.  Is it facebook / the internet that is bringing them to light more often or is there really an increase?  Why is it that, when we hear of something off the wall (like many of these posts), there is usually one or two officers directly involved and then a handful that were nearby with knowledge of the situation that didnt raise a red flag? 

 

We see one example of what I am looking for in the video from TN - the officer that notices the camera mentions that it wasn't really a good hit just before he notices the camera.  How do police forces come up with a way to bring those issues to light without labeling the reporting officer a snitch?  Is there a way to report these things for 'training' purposes without disciplining the officer, assuming that something is learned from the incident?  IMO, the best way to prevent these things would be for LEO's to self report and retrain, Im sure for every incident we see there are many that are unseen.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

I think, before I let a man stick his finger in my backside, there would be a whole lot of officers holding me down and arresting me for resisting an officer.  They want to do a cavity search, escort me to the ER and let a DR do it.  Women should not be treated any differently. 

 

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

It was a female officer that searched them, and they don't have to take them to a hospital. Don't you ever watch "Jail"? As for me, ugh, you couldn't pay me enough to do a body search on any of them. Too, that dash cam catches a lot of things, and catching them shoving drugs "where the sun don't shine" happens all the time.

Im a male, and I was referring to a male officer searching me.

 

I stand by my statement about being arrested before I let anyone do a cavity search on the side of the road.  I don't care how many people they have seen doing it - doesn't give them the right to assume I did.....

Im a male, and I was referring to a male officer searching me.

 

I stand by my statement about being arrested before I let anyone do a cavity search on the side of the road.  I don't care how many people they have seen doing it - doesn't give them the right to assume I did.....

 

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

That's fine, plenty of them try that "you can't do that" line too.

Originally Posted by direstraits:

Remember, the main thesis of the post was over militarization of the police. Not, a few bad practices by the police. 

I thought the post was about police trashing constitutional rights.

 

I think part of the problem that is driving the over militarization of police are the bad practices.  An officer lets one cavity search or other questionable search go and it cascades into much more over time.  Was it initially a plan to militarize the police, or did it evolve into that over time?  If officers had a way to self report questionable actions, would similar actions be prevented further down the line? 

 

Look at the issue with the VA ABC officers.  They violated NUMEROUS internal policies, yet no one on scene found a problem with any of the violations, nor was there any discussion among them about the violations afterwards.  In fact, the officer in charge told the others involved that he supported their actions that night.  Did a culmination of bad habits and an environment of not following the rules lead to that incident, or was the overall goal of the department to be militarized?  By the info in their policies, the departments overall objective did not seem to support their actions, so is it that the department is militarized or is it that the officers themselves had developed bad habits?

 

Its probably a little of both......

Originally Posted by wright35633:

http://www.wcvb.com/news/local...5iuu79z/-/index.html

 

For all the bad you drum up, there are many more shining examples. It's all in what you look for.

========

I just think that due to the proliferation of cell phones with cameras, and the simple fact that virtually everyone has one. the problems are being brought out in the open more.

Hopefully, this will lead to a cleansing and the good law enforcement people can go back to doing good work, and this chaff can be sifted out to pick tomatoes or something.

I also tend to think a new mindset has set in amongst police. For example, back when I was growing up in the '60s. if you were caught out with your friends drinking, the cops would pour out all your liquor or beer, have you walk a line to determine who the soberest one was, and make them drive - tell us to go home and not go back out tonight, and if we were really more than a little drunk, would give a police escort back to a safe place. 

When was the last time you heard of that happening ?

Used to , if a cop found you smoking dope , you would be isssued a ticket with a $50 fine, and sent home - you would NOT be home if you were caught because the cops would NOT GO TO YOUR HOME AND LOOK FOR DRUGS. If you were dumb enough to leave you lid of weed in open view, they would take it - don't know what they did with it.

Now if you are caught drinking, or smoking dope, they make a major issue out of it, and  ruin the lives of the people involved.

So, yes, I do think police are trampling on our rights more now than in the past because it is too easy for the city or the police dept to make a lot of money in the process, and to hell with whoever's life they trash.


if

Originally Posted by wright35633:

http://www.wcvb.com/news/local...5iuu79z/-/index.html

 

For all the bad you drum up, there are many more shining examples. It's all in what you look for.

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

They're not interested in that. They want to demonize every police officer everywhere. You also never see posts or reports about police officers shot dead because they stopped someone for a minor violation, and did no more than walk up to the window of the car. This very thread was started to make us think that "storm troopers" arrested "peaceful" protesters, when in fact all they did was stand at the top of the courthouse to block the crowd from entering, and were there in case things got very ugly. EXACTLY what they should have done, because to many times "peaceful" protesters or rowdy sports crowds have no problem rioting, attacking the police and bystanders, destroying public and other's property, fighting and injuring others, and burning cars and businesses, yet it's the cops we're supposed to get upset about.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:
 This very thread was started to make us think that "storm troopers" arrested "peaceful" protesters, when in fact all they did was stand at the top of the courthouse to block the crowd from entering, and were there in case things got very ugly.

This very thread was created to share the video of the TN state trooper that trampled on a mans constitutional rights during a supposed DUI roadblock - even though he was never asked if he had been drinking.

 

Where it has gone from there has been the natural progression discussing situations that have occurred recently that were in line with the subject at hand.

 

If you wish to start a thread about "police officers shot dead because they stopped someone for a minor violation, and did no more than walk up to the window of the car" then feel free.  The button is labeled 'Post New Topic' and is found at the top right hand corner of the screen......

Originally Posted by seeweed:

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.


For those that are unwilling to scroll to the beginning of the thread, this was the initial post.....

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by wright35633:

http://www.wcvb.com/news/local...5iuu79z/-/index.html

 

For all the bad you drum up, there are many more shining examples. It's all in what you look for.

========

I just think that due to the proliferation of cell phones with cameras, and the simple fact that virtually everyone has one. the problems are being brought out in the open more.

Hopefully, this will lead to a cleansing and the good law enforcement people can go back to doing good work, and this chaff can be sifted out to pick tomatoes or something.

I also tend to think a new mindset has set in amongst police. For example, back when I was growing up in the '60s. if you were caught out with your friends drinking, the cops would pour out all your liquor or beer, have you walk a line to determine who the soberest one was, and make them drive - tell us to go home and not go back out tonight, and if we were really more than a little drunk, would give a police escort back to a safe place. 

When was the last time you heard of that happening ?

Used to , if a cop found you smoking dope , you would be isssued a ticket with a $50 fine, and sent home - you would NOT be home if you were caught because the cops would NOT GO TO YOUR HOME AND LOOK FOR DRUGS. If you were dumb enough to leave you lid of weed in open view, they would take it - don't know what they did with it.

Now if you are caught drinking, or smoking dope, they make a major issue out of it, and  ruin the lives of the people involved.

So, yes, I do think police are trampling on our rights more now than in the past because it is too easy for the city or the police dept to make a lot of money in the process, and to hell with whoever's life they trash.


if

It sounds to me that you are more disgruntled with the laws that the officers are sworn to uphold. Police didn't write those laws you mentioned Seeweed.

Originally Posted by Capt James T:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:
 This very thread was started to make us think that "storm troopers" arrested "peaceful" protesters, when in fact all they did was stand at the top of the courthouse to block the crowd from entering, and were there in case things got very ugly.

This very thread was created to share the video of the TN state trooper that trampled on a mans constitutional rights during a supposed DUI roadblock - even though he was never asked if he had been drinking.

 

Where it has gone from there has been the natural progression discussing situations that have occurred recently that were in line with the subject at hand.

 

If you wish to start a thread about "police officers shot dead because they stopped someone for a minor violation, and did no more than walk up to the window of the car" then feel free.  The button is labeled 'Post New Topic' and is found at the top right hand corner of the screen......

Of all of the DUI arrests I have made over the years, I have never had to ask a drunk person if they had been drinking. You should be able to tell without asking. Once again, according to SCOTUS, the checkpoint was legal. The trampling did not occur, and I won't comment either way, until the guy refused to comply with the lawful order. Once again, go to findlaw.com and see for yourself. Don't go bashing the police for doing their job at a lawful DUI checkpoint because one guy cops an attitude. No pun intended.

If you wish to start a thread about "police officers shot dead because they stopped someone for a minor violation, and did no more than walk up to the window of the car" then feel free.  The button is labeled 'Post New Topic' and is found at the top right hand corner of the screen......

 

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

The same "suggestion" can be given to the ones that go from dui checkpoints to trying to make it look like "storm troopers" ran over peaceful protestors. I wouldn't want to start a thread about cops being shot dead while going about their business, that might get in the way of all the "cop bashing".  

Originally Posted by wright35633:
Originally Posted by Capt James T:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Of all of the DUI arrests I have made over the years, I have never had to ask a drunk person if they had been drinking. You should be able to tell without asking. Once again, according to SCOTUS, the checkpoint was legal. The trampling did not occur, and I won't comment either way, until the guy refused to comply with the lawful order. Once again, go to findlaw.com and see for yourself. Don't go bashing the police for doing their job at a lawful DUI checkpoint because one guy cops an attitude. No pun intended.

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

I have been stopped a couple of times in the last few years, on New Years Eve night, because "I thought I saw you swerve back there". Both times the officer was very , very nice, and ask had I been drinking. Both times the answer was "no".

Although I do not resent being pulled over, I do believe it was because of the night in question and the late hour - in other words, I was profiled. (And by the way, I hadn't swerved in either case)

Please don't get the idea I resent the police, but I have listed some grievances about police action  on this forum before , and I just wonder - maybe you can help answer - why would they send a thief writing bad checks holding my daughters purse home ? , Why would they laugh at my son who reported people had stolen stuff off of his car when he had the tag number and a witness ?, why would they throw my daughter in jail overnight for DUI with a blood alcohol of 0.01 (one drink two hours previously) only to get it kicked out by a judge because - well, she wasn't drunk ? 

Why would a house break in , and the "suspect" identified by an eyewitness via a picture, choose to do nothing ?

What are the police for ? only after drugs and dui to bring money into the city ? What happened to protecting us from thieves , and burglars ?  Why would they ignore a 911 call and let a building be torched to the ground ?  

I'm just curious.

In the past , I have known quite a few law enforcement people, and have always had great respect for them, BUT, the crimes they were interested in were stopping or arresting thieves , burglars, and in general protecting the citizens. There seems to be a new breed not interested in anything that does not bring revenue into the city coffers.

If you can help me on that, I would be appreciative.

 

"I thought I saw you swerve back there".

 

Yup. I caught that one a few weeks ago about a mile from my home with my wife in the car with me.

Sheriff's deputy said I crossed the line "a couple times."

I passed the attitude test-BUT...

I *don't* drive erratically.  I know where the g#dd*#n lines are for f#*#s sakes.

 

He just wanted to see who I was 'cuz I look like I 'haint frum rayound heeyar.' 

After explaining to me that because of my exemplary driving record, he was only going to issue a verbal warning-he told me to 'continue to drive safely.'

 

S'pose it coulda been worse.  Back home they'da ran me into the side of a building and yanked me out the car thru a closed window before determining that it was somebody else they were looking for. (Yeah, that happened once, too in Stamford, CT...Turns out they had the wrong van...)

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

Haa ha pup 99 % of those on that road are going to or from no good. i'll get you a church bumper sticker.lol

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

Jeez I dunno if it's stick to ma car.

 

You still on da book de fascia? I no see ya no more.

Tried to catch ya down at the dock this year but couldn't get anywhere near the place.

/shrug

Improper lane usage? The last time I was stopped was a few years ago on a Labor Day weekend. I was visiting a relative in Tuscumbia and had gotten back on 43 to go home. Meeting an officer pulling out of a stop, he made a U-turn and stopped me. He thought I had crossed the center line he said. He checked my record and gave me a warning. Without turning his lights off, I see him pull out and again do a U-turn and stop a truck. I call that trolling on a Friday of a holiday weekend when the city has been given extra funding for clickitorticket or whatever.

Originally Posted by mad American:

Road Puppy, you were profiled.  I have been pulled over for being a white man, driving a white van.  Turns out they were looking for someone that drove a white van for something else. I was still profiled.

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

LOL....Brah, you ain't gotta tell me dat.

 I don't fit 'the mold...'

Those motherstickers been pullin' me over ever since I got licensed.  

 

Seeweed I don't have the answer for that. There are rules of evidence, etc. that inhibit police action. That may be a factor in the lack of arrests. I don't know because I don't know those details. And as far as your daughter is concerned, I don't have an answer for that. Once again, no details. I'll tell this story. I met a van on a narrow road that collided with the bridge and ran off the road. It pulled away as I turned around to investigate. I turned my lights on and it drove several blocks before stopping. The driver couldn't stand, let alone perform sobriety tests. He admittedly drank two beers and took an Ambien. Mixing drugs with alcohol creates what is called the synergistic effect. It intensifies the intoxication basically. After the lengthy time trying to get him to perform the tests, waiting for the wrecker, and driving him to the police department, he only blew a .05. The judge dismissed the case. If there ever was a dui that needed to be made, he was it. But is was dismissed based on the breathalyzer result. Has nothing to do with your situation, but speaks to the fact that good arrests are not always convictions based on rule of law. Also, every department is different. That may account for some of it.

Wrigt, I appreciate your answer. I hope you can see why I have some of the mindset I maintain. 

As I said before, I have known some mighty fine law enforcement people, many are good friends. I have never had any problem with hwy patrol officers although I don't personally know any of them, they seem to be very professional, and the police from my hometown have all been excellent , and assumed it their duty to look after the elderly in the town, and in the winter , they go around to the older peoples house and insure they have sufficient heat , and in emergency situations, they will take them kerosene and a kerosene heater if they need one. . That's what I came up thinking what police should be doing.

 

I'll sign out of this discussion with the following story of my culture shock when I moved to Memphis:

my daughter was still in diapers , and I took my motorcycle one day to go get her some disposable diapers. It was a hot, Dog Days type of day, and as I left the store , I pulled off my face shield, leaving a pair of sunglasses on my face . As I crossed the main road, I observed a DWI van (in case you are too young to remember them, it was a Winnebago motor home that it took to measure alcohol before the little hand held meters) put on his brakes. I continued the 4 blocks to my home, and about the time I got off the bike, the DWI van parks in front of my house with the lights flashing, and gives me a ticket for "improper eye ware".  Actually, I have ridden many many miles before and have ridden many many mrore miles since with just sunglasses for eye protection. 

The next day, as I went out to my truck to get my coffee cup, there was a cop car behind my truck (I parked under a shade tree and lived at a corner of a cul-de-sac and a city street. The Cul-de-sack had 4 houses behind me., and I was parked with the curb on the left side of my truck.

I recieved a ticket for parking on the wrong side of the curb, (if I had been on the other side of the curb , I would have been on the sidewalk), and a ticket for no city inspection sticker. I pointed out to the cop that I did have a current inspection sticker, and attempted to point it out to him on the wihdshield . His comeback was "tell it to the judge" 

I paid the parking fine, and took the inspection sticker to court complete with my reciept, and a Poloroid pic of the sticker on the windshield. I was convicted innocient on that charge, a normal $25 fine , which got thrown out of court at court cost ($20). 

That was the day I decided to move out of Memphis.

In the video I posted above is an example of a good policeman. Sadly for him he lost his job because he wanted to do the right thing. As he said, good cops have tried to change it from the inside and instead they get pushed out, now what is left are the bad cops. We need to keep putting pressure on our law enforcement agencies so that good cops can regain their jobs of protecting and serving. 

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

In the video I posted above is an example of a good policeman. Sadly for him he lost his job because he wanted to do the right thing. As he said, good cops have tried to change it from the inside and instead they get pushed out, now what is left are the bad cops. We need to keep putting pressure on our law enforcement agencies so that good cops can regain their jobs of protecting and serving. 

====

I failed to comment , but that video you posted is really telling to me of what "law enforcement" (notice the quotes) is becoming. Very sad indeed.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×