Cop's guns confiscated, would you defend him?

[PrincessKraken]

Originally Posted by Atra Mors

Here's the thing, I've got a bit of real world experience here..

Here's the thing I've got a bit of real world experience here. My good friend married a dirt bag whore. She beat the crap out of him on a regular basis and he never raised a hand to her.

In the divorce she claimed he hit her, and got a temporary restraining order against him. He lost his job as a plane mechanic until it was all straightened out.

By then she skipped 3 states with the kids, and Ohio still collects out of his check even though she hasn't allowed a visitation in 11 years. Oh and when the woman does it, it's not kidnapping.

[hawk55732]

Originally Posted by PrincessKraken

Here's the thing I've got a bit of real world experience here. My good friend married a dirt bag whore. She beat the crap out of him on a regular basis and he never raised a hand to her.

In the divorce she claimed he hit her, and got a temporary restraining order against him. He lost his job as a plane mechanic until it was all straightened out.

By then she skipped 3 states with the kids, and Ohio still collects out of his check even though she hasn't allowed a visitation in 11 years. Oh and when the woman does it, it's not kidnapping.

Not true for all states. Just like alot of issues it can vary from state to state.

[Levant]

Originally Posted by PrincessKraken

So you're a bigot?

I was reaching to click Thanks on your post because it was right on - until I saw the above.

A bigot? Seriously?

Cops have great power over us. With that power comes great responsibility. If you're going to swear to be a law enforcement officer you can't exclude yourself. That is different from taking a stand and, for instance, not enforcing confiscation against those you protect. The difference is the beneficiary of his choice to not follow the law. Discretionary behavior that benefits yourself must be scrutinized much more carefully than discretionary behavior that benefits others.

To say that cops are just like the rest of us and have the same human frailties, therefore the same propensity to commit crime as anyone else so we should not expect more of them is to say that they are nothing more than the legal gang as compared to any other gang. But cops are not like the rest of us. They carry guns and badges and arrest people. We need them. But we do have the right to expect them to adhere to higher standards than those whom they arrest just like I expect Congresspeople to obey the laws they pass for us.

I've made this view clear throughout the thread. Feel free to debate the issue or my view on the issue but keep the personal attacks out of it.

When those who create or enforce the laws reserve to themselves the power to ignore the laws then they set themselves up as rulers.

[Levant]

Originally Posted by Atra Mors

Here's the thing, I've got a bit of real world experience here.....childhood friend married a dirt bag. It went to domestic abuse five minutes after the "I do's" and continued for another three years. None of the 8 court issued restraining orders did anything. Lots of trips to the ER. Eventually the problem was solved by a Texas Public Safety officer who put a 357 round through the guy's brain...

So, it that what you want here Princess.... a dead husband, or a dead wife because gun rights are more important then life, and you've also got a short list of all the answers of why a wife would screw her husband out of his gun rights? Give me a break...

Gun rights are more important than life. The whole Revolutionary War was fought on the premise that liberty was more important than life.

If the guy had used a gun to threaten his wife then he should be in jail for assault. Otherwise his right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed any more than should yours or mine. What he should go to jail for is that he thought he was above the law that he enforced for everyone else.

[greg48]

my part of the country i know most of the "cops" and would defend them as they would me, the local "cops" i don't worry about, ATF and FBI are a whole different topic...

[lowlife]

Apparently where I live the cops are much better than where most of you live. My dad was a cop, my son is a cop. I know most all the police in 1 county and several in a city of over 100k. Most all of these guys are stand up guys. Yes there is one that needs to be removed and there was one that was just removed, basically for being an ******* but that obviously was not the official reason.

I worry about my son as the people that he deals with on a daily basis are getting worse and worse. He has far more patience than I do with them as he gets cussed at spit on and sometimes assaulted just for pulling someone over for speeding. I do alot of ridealongs with him and I know how to release the evil black rifle in the squad if necessary. Hell yes I will defend the cop in the article, the only facts being presented are by a newspaper that has no agenda? He may have been one of the ones that defended your freedoms. We don't know the man.

[PrincessKraken]

Originally Posted by Levant

I was reaching to click Thanks on your post because it was right on - until I saw the above.

A bigot? Seriously?

Seriously he's a Port Authority Transit Cop.


Go look it up.


They're not quite Beat Cops, they're a bit different than the LEO you're thinking of.

And yes, I think you're a bigot. He's a TRANSIT cop. His duties are LIMITED to the Port Authority. He is not a Ramsey, NJ Officer, he's not even a NJ State Officer.

You made an automatic assumption based on the fact that he is a brand of LEO.


And you know what, Cops don't know all the laws either. Usually they do what they are told by their commanding officer.

The laws used against him are Unconstitutional whether he's a Cop, a Glorified Security Guard, or a DA. And hopefully this will go to SCOTUS.

[Yehudi]

Originally Posted by PrincessKraken

The laws used against him are Unconstitutional whether he's a Cop, a Glorified Security Guard, or a DA. And hopefully this will go to SCOTUS.

Well, you are certainly welcome to your opinion. However, he did violate the laws legislated by a group defined by, and in accordance with, provisions of the Constitution. Violating a law simply because you disagree with it is optional, but carries with it significant consequences. The intelligent choice is to comply with the law unless and until it is overturned. The cop cannot even claim he didn’t know the law, even though that is no excuse.

Bottom line, he was caught in violation of an existing law, and he will hopefully be appropriately dealt with.

[gumbydood]

Originally Posted by Yehudi

Well, you are certainly welcome to your opinion. However, he did violate the laws legislated by a group defined by, and in accordance with, provisions of the Constitution. Violating a law simply because you disagree with it is optional, but carries with it significant consequences. The intelligent choice is to comply with the law unless and until it is overturned. The cop cannot even claim he didn’t know the law, even though that is no excuse.

Bottom line, he was caught in violation of an existing law, and he will hopefully be appropriately dealt with.

Except, those so-called laws are in direct conflict with other, irrevocable and entrenched, provisions of the same Constitution, and are therefore null and void. It's a simple concept, so simple I would think even *you* could understand it. Of course I may just be overestimating your abilities.

[PrincessKraken]

Originally Posted by gumbydood

Except, those so-called laws are in direct conflict with other, irrevocable and entrenched, provisions of the same Constitution, and are therefore null and void. It's a simple concept, so simple I would think even *you* could understand it. Of course I may just be overestimating your abilities.

It's amazing how uneducated some people are in the Constitution. Not you, but the individual you quoted.


The most effective way to get an unconstitutional law changed, is to break it.

[Yehudi]

Originally Posted by gumbydood

Except, those so-called laws are in direct conflict with other, irrevocable and entrenched, provisions of the same Constitution, and are therefore null and void. It's a simple concept, so simple I would think even *you* could understand it. Of course I may just be overestimating your abilities.

In your opinion. The opinions of others disagree. If it were so clear and easy, we wouldn’t have tens of thousands of Constitutional scholars and Constitutional lawyers. Over the centuries, it has been upheld that none of the provisions of the Constitution are absolute. Many are conditional. If you don’t think so, yell “fire” in a crowded public place and you will find that there are limits to Free Speech. Commit a serious crime and you will find there are limits to your freedom of movement. The Constitution is the basis for our society, and our laws are derived from it. Some people seem to think that as long as we have the Constitution, we don’t need any legislation or laws at all. That does not work in the real world.

BTW, your personal insults are irrelevant.

[Joe-R]

He didn't do anything I didn't do.
Joe-R