CCW Holder Charged with Murder
- Thread starter Jeff White
- Start date
- Status
Yup. And included among those offenses was trolling, defined loosely as posting for the purposes of inciting angry comments or drawing particular people out. That would be objective one of your plan, wouldn't it?
There are better ways of discussing and dealing with this issue than the way you attempted.
cropcirclewalker
member
Yo, Mr. White, you may have had trancendental motivations in starting up the string, but frankly, you blew it.
I know it's probably a bad example, but i analogize your initial post to a guy who shouts "fire" in a crowded theater to show that something bad would happen so one should not do it.
I know, I know, ccw "super citizen" bashing is not a crime. Neither is cop bashing, but on THR cop bashing will get your string pulled. I was post no. 2 and I was subtley trying to imply that maybe some hypocrisy was in play.
When you were playing the part of the poor picked on leo you had more moral highground. How do they say, "If you rassle with pigs, you will get dirty."
Sorry, no pun intended.
I could say that the decline of the country into a police state has caused the citizenry to accept less leo hijincks and perhaps that is the source of the lessening of civil discourse.
I could be wrong, but it's just something I have noted. Maybe it's that we are losing the drug war.
I know it's probably a bad example, but i analogize your initial post to a guy who shouts "fire" in a crowded theater to show that something bad would happen so one should not do it.
I know, I know, ccw "super citizen" bashing is not a crime. Neither is cop bashing, but on THR cop bashing will get your string pulled. I was post no. 2 and I was subtley trying to imply that maybe some hypocrisy was in play.
When you were playing the part of the poor picked on leo you had more moral highground. How do they say, "If you rassle with pigs, you will get dirty."
Sorry, no pun intended.
I could say that the decline of the country into a police state has caused the citizenry to accept less leo hijincks and perhaps that is the source of the lessening of civil discourse.
I could be wrong, but it's just something I have noted. Maybe it's that we are losing the drug war.
It seems some people don't like looking inward and finding hypocrasy. 
Maybe they'll think twice and post once from now on and if they don't have anything to add to a thread but an inflammitory statement they will refrain from posting....And The High Road will be what it was meant to be.
Jeff
Maybe they'll think twice and post once from now on and if they don't have anything to add to a thread but an inflammitory statement they will refrain from posting....And The High Road will be what it was meant to be.
Jeff
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
If that were true, there would be one hell of a lot of strings pulled around here.
A police state? What makes you consider this country a police state? I often get the feeling that people who think the current situation is bad have an imperfect understanding of some of our past history. The country definitely has some issues; but I wonder what actual police states you've visited to compare it to?
cropcirclewalker
member
Hoping here that I don't get admonished and trying to be of an anti-inflammatory nature, I will respond.
I am aware that the founders thought that law enforcement was in the baliwick of the states. (What?) The writer stated that we had no "Police" until perhaps the 1840s, I could be wrong.
We didn't get a Missouri State Highway Patrol until like in the mid 1930s.
Watch Mayberry RFD sometime. That series was created in the early 60s. Andy never even carried a gun.
So, now is a question for you.
Lets say you are getting into a swimming pool. Lets say you are declining into it. You aren't going to dive in because it might be cold. You go around to the shallow end and step into the water in the stairs and start down.
At what point are you in the pool?
When your toe first goes in?
When you are half way up your body?
When you are over your head?
Yes, we know the answer. When both feet are wet.
Like I said before, we are declining into a police state.
I read a piece once by a scholar in RI, IIRC, that claimed that upon the founding of our union, there were no police. I look at the constitution and can see no reference.
I am aware that the founders thought that law enforcement was in the baliwick of the states. (What?) The writer stated that we had no "Police" until perhaps the 1840s, I could be wrong.
We didn't get a Missouri State Highway Patrol until like in the mid 1930s.
Watch Mayberry RFD sometime. That series was created in the early 60s. Andy never even carried a gun.
So, now is a question for you.
Lets say you are getting into a swimming pool. Lets say you are declining into it. You aren't going to dive in because it might be cold. You go around to the shallow end and step into the water in the stairs and start down.
At what point are you in the pool?
When your toe first goes in?
When you are half way up your body?
When you are over your head?
Yes, we know the answer. When both feet are wet.
Like I said before, we are declining into a police state.
GoRon
Member
This is what Jeff said in the first post. I fail to see any problem with his post at all.
Of course I am jaded. My brother in law who was instrumental in my interest in firearms held a Fl CCW.
In a prescription drug and alcohol rage he pulled and inadvertently fired a shot during an argument with my sister. Not long after the divorce in the same state of mind he ate the barrel.
Lovely house in Palm Beach, owned two successful businesses and was loved and admired by all (except the last year or so of his life).
My family went from being very pro self defense/ 2nd amendment to not wanting anything to do with firearms.
There are bad apples and good apples that go bad in any group of folks. The damage the bad guys do is born by the good guys even after they are gone.
Moderator Hat On
cropcirclewalker and anyone else this applies to,
It doesn't matter if we are declining into a police state or exploding into anarchy. At THR we will debate it in a civil manner. That is the standard here. If you can't make a reasoned argument to support your point of view then you shouldn't post. If you can't make your point without insinuating that someone you disagree with is a jack booted thug, nazi, stalinist, maoist, tin hat, tin badge or any of a number of other things members are routinely calling each other here, then you shouldn't post. If your only argument is that something is unconstitutional, even though the supreme court has ruled it constitutional, then you shouldn't post. Because, in fact, it is constitutional until the court looks at the issue again and reverses itself. If you have a reason why the court should revisit the issue and reverse itself it would be acceptable to post that. If you think that if you yell it's unconstitutional and violates my rights louder and more often then someone else is conducting civil debate, then you are wrong.
There aren't many topics that are off limits here. And we're not going to make any more off limits, but you will discuss them in a civil manner with respect for the other members, regardless of race, creed or current profession or you won't be here. It's as simple as that. If you have any problems with that or wish to discuss it further contact any staff member privately.
Is that clear enough for everyone?
Jeff
cropcirclewalker and anyone else this applies to,
It doesn't matter if we are declining into a police state or exploding into anarchy. At THR we will debate it in a civil manner. That is the standard here. If you can't make a reasoned argument to support your point of view then you shouldn't post. If you can't make your point without insinuating that someone you disagree with is a jack booted thug, nazi, stalinist, maoist, tin hat, tin badge or any of a number of other things members are routinely calling each other here, then you shouldn't post. If your only argument is that something is unconstitutional, even though the supreme court has ruled it constitutional, then you shouldn't post. Because, in fact, it is constitutional until the court looks at the issue again and reverses itself. If you have a reason why the court should revisit the issue and reverse itself it would be acceptable to post that. If you think that if you yell it's unconstitutional and violates my rights louder and more often then someone else is conducting civil debate, then you are wrong.
There aren't many topics that are off limits here. And we're not going to make any more off limits, but you will discuss them in a civil manner with respect for the other members, regardless of race, creed or current profession or you won't be here. It's as simple as that. If you have any problems with that or wish to discuss it further contact any staff member privately.
Is that clear enough for everyone?
Jeff
nucstl1
Member
Regardless if it was murder or self-defense, we should be happy that he hit what he was aiming at. I have personally witnessed a gangbanger/drug dealer empty a magazine from about 60ft and miss his intended target...(Another gangbanger/drug dealer is a Crwon Vic)....Ticks me off to think about innocent bystanders taking a wild round.
Eleven Mike
Member
That's just funny. Lock this one.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Jeff, I understand that this is your opinion, but I contend it is in error. The Constitution is a matter of objective law. Even if the Supreme Court says that it means other than what it clearly says and other than what was plainly intended, they will still be wrong, and it will still mean something other than what they rule. Naturally, de facto law will conform with the current SCOTUS interpretations. It is still correct, however, to speak of what the Constitution actually says and what the Founders actually intended those words to mean. A ruling by the SCOTUS does not actually alter reality. It only alters to what extent our government is willing to adhere to its founding document.
Hawkeye,
We are a nation founded on the rule of law. Do you agree with that? The Supreme Court way back in the early 1800s ruled in Marbury v. Madison that they, the United States Supreme Court are the final arbiters of what is constitutional and what isn't. NO if you agree with Marbury or if you don't it's settled law until either the legislative branch or the executive branch somehow figures a way to challenge the court on it. (Constitutional Amendment maybe?)
So when they rule even though it goes totally against what is plainly written in the consititution that ruling makes it constitutional, it doesn't matter what you, me or anyone else thinks about the ruling. And it is constituional until the court revisits it and reverses itself.
Our only way to affect that is to elect politicians who will appoint judges who agree with our position on the issue.
If we're going to have 300 million people living here, all of them expecting their own interpretation of what the constitution says to have the force of law, we might as well have not have a constituion.
No one said you couldn't talk about what the constition actually says. But screaming it's unconstitutional louder then the guy who says it is, isn't having a civil debate.
Jeff
We are a nation founded on the rule of law. Do you agree with that? The Supreme Court way back in the early 1800s ruled in Marbury v. Madison that they, the United States Supreme Court are the final arbiters of what is constitutional and what isn't. NO if you agree with Marbury or if you don't it's settled law until either the legislative branch or the executive branch somehow figures a way to challenge the court on it. (Constitutional Amendment maybe?)
So when they rule even though it goes totally against what is plainly written in the consititution that ruling makes it constitutional, it doesn't matter what you, me or anyone else thinks about the ruling. And it is constituional until the court revisits it and reverses itself.
Our only way to affect that is to elect politicians who will appoint judges who agree with our position on the issue.
If we're going to have 300 million people living here, all of them expecting their own interpretation of what the constitution says to have the force of law, we might as well have not have a constituion.
No one said you couldn't talk about what the constition actually says. But screaming it's unconstitutional louder then the guy who says it is, isn't having a civil debate.
Jeff
The Real Hawkeye
member
Jeff, you cannot have the rule of law when the Supreme Court disregards the highest law of the land, setting themselves up as our arbitrary rulers, divorced from positive law. That is called the rule of men, not law.
Valkman
Member
I don't know what started all this LEO vs CCW stuff I'm seeing in these threads (AKA Jeff White vs The Real Hawkeye) but I do know what this guy did:
He bought a new XD .45 (like I did yesterday), tried out the 13+1 capacity, and 6 cases flew in his shirt pocket. He went home to reload his one mag since he now "only" had 13 available and he didn't feel safe while waiting for the police.
He bought a new XD .45 (like I did yesterday), tried out the 13+1 capacity, and 6 cases flew in his shirt pocket. He went home to reload his one mag since he now "only" had 13 available and he didn't feel safe while waiting for the police.
joab
Member
Only because Andy Grifith (the real life actor who played the fictional character Andy Taylor) didn't like the way the gun felt on his hip.
You will also notice that every other LEO portrayed on the show did carry a gun .
Last edited:
The Real Hawkeye said,
So you're saying that if the Supreme Court makes a ruling and doesn't apply the constitution the way that you, I or anyone else reads the constitution, that that ruling is invalid and doesn't have to be obeyed, it's not law?
Or is it only when YOU decide it's not within what the constitution allows? I want to know, do we have nine Supreme Court justices? Or do we have 300 million? Or do we have one?
Slavery lived on for decades after the Dred Scott decision. Or was that one you agreed with?
Jeff
So you're saying that if the Supreme Court makes a ruling and doesn't apply the constitution the way that you, I or anyone else reads the constitution, that that ruling is invalid and doesn't have to be obeyed, it's not law?
Or is it only when YOU decide it's not within what the constitution allows? I want to know, do we have nine Supreme Court justices? Or do we have 300 million? Or do we have one?
Slavery lived on for decades after the Dred Scott decision. Or was that one you agreed with?
Jeff
Michael Courtney
Member
But the news story does not make the CCW holder our to be a cold-blooded killer. The news story says that the police do not know what caused the dispute that ended in a man being shot, so how can we have any idea whether or not the CCW holder was acting in self-defense.
We are not "closing ranks" but merely extending the same sense of "presumed innocent" that we would like to have applied to us, at least until there are facts available that indicate that the CCW holder was not acting in self-defense.
Until and unless the police and prosecutors are sure of the nature of the quarrel, it was pre-mature to file first degree murder charges.
Michael Courtney
GoRon
Member
That is the whole point. The first degree murder charge is a big clue that the cops think this was a bad shoot.
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
Jeff
Well, there's law and then again there's law not enforced, ala Jackson's response to the SCOTUS when he was told his relocation of the Cherokee was verboten... something about "Then let THEM enforce it"... or words to that effect.
Of course, Jackson WAS the President, the SCOTUS didn't then have umpty dozen DOJ type police agencies available to buck the President's (and the majority of the populace?) will, but it showed me that, at least way back then, SCOTUS was a toothless tiger... unless someone has the guns to force the action they want/ruled.
Not that this has anything to do with your original post
Speaking of which, it is always wise to "Never say never" or paint everyone with the same paintbrush due to one ne'r-do-well's action... but we seem to do it anyway, whether it's Cops, Gun-Owners, Politicians, CCW's, etc. Sorta like saying ALL Cherokee's are bad and must move to Oklahoma cause we don't like the actions of a few...
Hmmmmm
Well, there's law and then again there's law not enforced, ala Jackson's response to the SCOTUS when he was told his relocation of the Cherokee was verboten... something about "Then let THEM enforce it"... or words to that effect.
Of course, Jackson WAS the President, the SCOTUS didn't then have umpty dozen DOJ type police agencies available to buck the President's (and the majority of the populace?) will, but it showed me that, at least way back then, SCOTUS was a toothless tiger... unless someone has the guns to force the action they want/ruled.
Not that this has anything to do with your original post
Speaking of which, it is always wise to "Never say never" or paint everyone with the same paintbrush due to one ne'r-do-well's action... but we seem to do it anyway, whether it's Cops, Gun-Owners, Politicians, CCW's, etc. Sorta like saying ALL Cherokee's are bad and must move to Oklahoma cause we don't like the actions of a few...
Hmmmmm
The Real Hawkeye
member
What I am saying is that the Supreme Court is not interpreting the Constitution at all, in most cases, but merely deciding which public policy they would like to impose on the country as a whole, and then making convoluted and blatantly disingenuous arguments that somehow that's what the Framers intended when they wrote the Constitution, or that if they did not intend that, they would have if they only knew what they did. This is not the rule of law, but of men. My representatives are failing to do their jobs in not impeaching these tyrants. That is what I am saying. I think I was quite clear.
Yes, slavery lived on after Dred Scott. Why should that surprise you? Dred Scott correctly ruled that the Supreme Court had no authority to free a single privately owned slave. You see, back then, the Supreme Court actually lived within the four corners of the US Constitution. They did not usurp powers not delegated to them via that instrument. The power to determine the legality of slavery belonged, according to the Tenth Amendment, exclusively to the States. The Federal Government was not empowered to impose that determination on the States, and that's what Dred Scott was about. It was a correct decision. It was never, by the way, overturned by a new SCOTUS ruling. It was overturned only by an amendment to the US Constitution, i.e., the Thirteenth. As the Constitution stood in 1857, the Dred Scott ruling was perfectly in order. It was a State matter, not within the delegated powers of the US Supreme Court or any other branch of the Federal Government.
Last edited:
Old Dog
Member
While noting the usual thread drift (to debating Constitutional matters, the role of the Supreme Court, states' rights, the Civil War, slavery and Andy of Mayberry) ... and not that I don't find all this, as usual, of some morbid interest ...
I feel compelled to observe that once again, we are displaying the expected dichotomy extant on this board ... with posts that continue to contribute to the divide between those civil libertarians/would-be Constitutional scholars/history buffs/lawful CCWers and those from the law enforcement community.
I submit that those on both sides -- RKBA supporters legally carrying handguns and law enforcement agents/officers -- need each other's support now more than ever. But, it just seems to me that we continue to endlessly debate about such ultimately pointless situations (bad cops who represent a threat to our freedom and gun rights vs. negligent or criminal CPL/CHL/CCW permit holders, etc.) and engage in far more divisive discourse (often lowering itself to shameful diatribe) than we do in working to unite in support of RKBA.
So, ultimately, I find this thread pointless.
I feel compelled to observe that once again, we are displaying the expected dichotomy extant on this board ... with posts that continue to contribute to the divide between those civil libertarians/would-be Constitutional scholars/history buffs/lawful CCWers and those from the law enforcement community.
I submit that those on both sides -- RKBA supporters legally carrying handguns and law enforcement agents/officers -- need each other's support now more than ever. But, it just seems to me that we continue to endlessly debate about such ultimately pointless situations (bad cops who represent a threat to our freedom and gun rights vs. negligent or criminal CPL/CHL/CCW permit holders, etc.) and engage in far more divisive discourse (often lowering itself to shameful diatribe) than we do in working to unite in support of RKBA.
So, ultimately, I find this thread pointless.
Michael Courtney
Member
If the citizens retain RKBA, then the people are the final arbiters of what is constitutional.
If the citizens forfeit RKBA, then the government is the final arbiter.
Which do you prefer?
Always remember Courtney's law of government:
If you ask any government entity whether or not they have the authority in a certain matter, they will always tell you that they do.
So why are we suprised that the Supreme Court claims ultimate authority for themselves? If the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on matters of law, then we live in an oligarchy rather than a Constitutional Democratic Republic.
The ultimate authority of all matters of law and government belongs to the people.
Michael Courtney
The Real Hawkeye
member
Well, Jeff started this thread, so if he wants to take it into a discussion of Dred Scott, etc., I will go right along with him. I don't see the problem. He is certainly not going to shut it down for it, since it was he who took it in that direction.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Maybe you should look at the debate of the founding fathers. They discussed their interpretations of the proper delegation of police powers in several spots. If they are discussing police powers, that would seem to indicate the existence of police.
The U.S. Marshalls were formed by the Judiciary Act of 1789. The legislation was introduced by the same people who signed the Constitution. It took me 30 seconds to find out that information using Google and the words "first federal law enforcement agency." Think how easily you could have constructed both a more informative and more effective argument by doing that yourself.
Just a suggestion for future debate; but when you find yourself pointing to a 1960s TV series to make a comment on the Constitutional nature of the law, you are probably in way over your head. Should I look to the A-Team to decide how much Private Military Contractors have changed since the 1980s?
Under that standard, there are no free nations left on the planet. They are all in various stages of declining into police states - except the freedom loving states of Liberia or similar African states that are in too much anarchy from battling warlords to have police forces or law.
If the U.S. ever does decline into a police state, one of the first things that will have to happen is an us v. them attitude where the police no longer see themselves as citizens. Do you think your comments, even if they were justified, help or hurt that goal?
The Real Hawkeye
member
Well said mike. Exactly true.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
