The hero warrior cop is ready to get roided up, rape, and drink and drive
10-09-2014, 09:29 PM
#3201
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,036
Total Cats: 6,603
28'th Amendment:
Any individual (or, if that individual is claimed as a dependent, the individual by whom such claim is made) who receives income in the form of state or federal social-service benefits, or files a state or federal income tax return in which the net tax liability is less than $0, may not cast a ballot in any election for a period of four years following such a transaction.
Note how this neatly protects people like stay-at-home parents in a "married, filing jointly" situation, while not permitting to escape people who game the system by working just enough to file a 1040 and pocket a net profit after deductions and credits. Any individual (or, if that individual is claimed as a dependent, the individual by whom such claim is made) who receives income in the form of state or federal social-service benefits, or files a state or federal income tax return in which the net tax liability is less than $0, may not cast a ballot in any election for a period of four years following such a transaction.
Fun fact: this isn't prohibited by the US Constitution or any amendment. You can't deny political franchise based upon race (15th), color (15th), previous condition of servitude (15th), gender (19th) or ability pay a poll tax (24th), but you MAY deny it based on pretty much any other factors.
Vote Perez in 2016.
Reply
0
0
10-10-2014, 08:44 AM
#3202
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,499
Total Cats: 4,080
I wish you had written all your ses with fs.
JP is trying to destory the leftist model of buying votes. What good are elections if you can't promise slaves more slavery under the guise of progress/reform/hope?
JP is trying to destory the leftist model of buying votes. What good are elections if you can't promise slaves more slavery under the guise of progress/reform/hope?
Reply
0
0
10-10-2014, 11:09 AM
#3203
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,036
Total Cats: 6,603
What I have proposed here is nothing more than an extension of the existing 27th Amendment, in a form which applies to voters instead of congreʃs.
So just as congreʃs must submit to a waiting period of one term after viewing itself a pay raise, voters must now submit to a waiting period of one presidential term after receiving handouts from the government before they can elect the next set of politicians to give more handouts.
Both amendments decouple the act of receiving public money from the act of allocating it.
Reply
0
0
10-10-2014, 08:07 PM
#3204
It's a pretty damn interesting thought exercise, Joe.
A class of people is disenfranchised, but it's not a permanent class, it's a (mostly) transient class. And the transience is structured such that as citizens naturally pass out of that class, they are likely to change priorities and be more inclined to protect their own earnings instead of seeking to share in others' earnings.
There are some issues (is Social Security included as a state or federal social service benefit? Is the intention to permanently disenfranchise retirees? War veterans receiving benefits?), but the idea is clever.
Sadly, it's a bit too clever to ever be enacted.
A class of people is disenfranchised, but it's not a permanent class, it's a (mostly) transient class. And the transience is structured such that as citizens naturally pass out of that class, they are likely to change priorities and be more inclined to protect their own earnings instead of seeking to share in others' earnings.
There are some issues (is Social Security included as a state or federal social service benefit? Is the intention to permanently disenfranchise retirees? War veterans receiving benefits?), but the idea is clever.
Sadly, it's a bit too clever to ever be enacted.
Reply
0
0
10-12-2014, 02:15 PM
#3205
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Maryville TN
Posts: 878
Total Cats: 79
We don't necessarily need to disenfranchise all blacks and women, we just need to make an individual's electoral power directly proportional to that individual's value to society, economic or otherwise. It's quite simple:
Fun fact: this isn't prohibited by the US Constitution or any amendment. You can't deny political franchise based upon race (15th), color (15th), previous condition of servitude (15th), gender (19th) or ability pay a poll tax (24th), but you MAY deny it based on pretty much any other factors.
Vote Perez in 2016.
28'th Amendment:
Any individual (or, if that individual is claimed as a dependent, the individual by whom such claim is made) who receives income in the form of state or federal social-service benefits, or files a state or federal income tax return in which the net tax liability is less than $0, may not cast a ballot in any election for a period of four years following such a transaction.
Note how this neatly protects people like stay-at-home parents in a "married, filing jointly" situation, while not permitting to escape people who game the system by working just enough to file a 1040 and pocket a net profit after deductions and credits. Any individual (or, if that individual is claimed as a dependent, the individual by whom such claim is made) who receives income in the form of state or federal social-service benefits, or files a state or federal income tax return in which the net tax liability is less than $0, may not cast a ballot in any election for a period of four years following such a transaction.
Fun fact: this isn't prohibited by the US Constitution or any amendment. You can't deny political franchise based upon race (15th), color (15th), previous condition of servitude (15th), gender (19th) or ability pay a poll tax (24th), but you MAY deny it based on pretty much any other factors.
Vote Perez in 2016.
Reply
0
0
10-14-2014, 09:17 AM
#3206
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,499
Total Cats: 4,080
Freedom of Speech, etc (+)
Right to bare arms (+)
Rights to quarters (+)
Rights to privacy (+)
Rights to silence; single jeopardy (+)
Rights to a speedy trial (+)
Rights to jury (+)
Rights to bail and reasonable fines/punishment (+)
Rights to unenumerated rights (+)
Rights to state's rights (+)
Rights to sue people from another state (+)
Revised Article II - Solved issues with electoral process (+/-)
Revised Article IV - Solved issues with people being captive slaves (+)
Revised Article I - Solved issues with equal rights and protections (+)
Rights to Suffrage - race (+)
Revised Article I - Solved issues with the Fed needing money (-)
Revised Article I - Solved issues with the election of Senators (-/+)
Removed the rights to consume/manufacturer at your own desire (-)
Rights to Suffrage - sex (+)
Revised Article I - Solved issues with the election/replacement of the President(-/+)
Revised 18th Amendment - Solved issues with the Constitution limiting the power of the individual (+)
Revised Article I - Solved issues with the term length of the President (-/+)
Rights to Suffrage - D.C. (+)
Rights to Suffrage - tax (+)
Revised Article II - Solved issues with the succession/vacancy of the President(-/+)
Rights to Suffrage - age (+)
Solved issues with Senators/Representatives giving themselves a pay raise (-/+)
The Constitution has a clear precedent of either granting individuals rights, or limiting/clarifying the power of the government in order to prevent corruption.
Of all 27 Amendments only two directly negate freedoms, where one was repealed, rightfully. The other could be argued it's does not necessarily negate freedoms, but I find it violates the Section 1 of 14th amendment, where it deprives the individual of property without due process.
Of all 27 Amendments eight revise the Articles to deal with direct issues that arose from the original processes. They do not necessarily affect freedoms, but change the process in which the gov't is to function.
Of all 27 Amendments five deal directly with suffrage (20% of the Amendments); all five clearly increasing the rights of the individual.
The proposed 28th Amendment clearly and directly removes rights to the individual. I would be adamantly opposed it.
I suggest my own 28th and 29th Amendments:
minority majority.
Right to bare arms (+)
Rights to quarters (+)
Rights to privacy (+)
Rights to silence; single jeopardy (+)
Rights to a speedy trial (+)
Rights to jury (+)
Rights to bail and reasonable fines/punishment (+)
Rights to unenumerated rights (+)
Rights to state's rights (+)
Rights to sue people from another state (+)
Revised Article II - Solved issues with electoral process (+/-)
Revised Article IV - Solved issues with people being captive slaves (+)
Revised Article I - Solved issues with equal rights and protections (+)
Rights to Suffrage - race (+)
Revised Article I - Solved issues with the Fed needing money (-)
Revised Article I - Solved issues with the election of Senators (-/+)
Rights to Suffrage - sex (+)
Revised Article I - Solved issues with the election/replacement of the President(-/+)
Revised 18th Amendment - Solved issues with the Constitution limiting the power of the individual (+)
Revised Article I - Solved issues with the term length of the President (-/+)
Rights to Suffrage - D.C. (+)
Rights to Suffrage - tax (+)
Revised Article II - Solved issues with the succession/vacancy of the President(-/+)
Rights to Suffrage - age (+)
Solved issues with Senators/Representatives giving themselves a pay raise (-/+)
The Constitution has a clear precedent of either granting individuals rights, or limiting/clarifying the power of the government in order to prevent corruption.
Of all 27 Amendments only two directly negate freedoms, where one was repealed, rightfully. The other could be argued it's does not necessarily negate freedoms, but I find it violates the Section 1 of 14th amendment, where it deprives the individual of property without due process.
Of all 27 Amendments eight revise the Articles to deal with direct issues that arose from the original processes. They do not necessarily affect freedoms, but change the process in which the gov't is to function.
Of all 27 Amendments five deal directly with suffrage (20% of the Amendments); all five clearly increasing the rights of the individual.
The proposed 28th Amendment clearly and directly removes rights to the individual. I would be adamantly opposed it.
I suggest my own 28th and 29th Amendments:
28'th Amendment:
Section 1. No person, except in the land or naval forces, can receive income in the form of federal social-service benefits.
Section 2. No person, except in the land or naval forces, can receive income or in the form of federal social-insurance benefits.
Section 3. Mandatory Federal spending can not including social-service programs.
Section 4. Congress shall make no law requiring a tax based on health coverage status.
This would solve Joe's issue without disenfranchising a certain Section 1. No person, except in the land or naval forces, can receive income in the form of federal social-service benefits.
Section 2. No person, except in the land or naval forces, can receive income or in the form of federal social-insurance benefits.
Section 3. Mandatory Federal spending can not including social-service programs.
Section 4. Congress shall make no law requiring a tax based on health coverage status.
29'th Amendment:
The Congress may by law compel any person holding office, elected or appointed, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, to be a witness against himself.
The Congress may by law compel any person holding office, elected or appointed, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, to be a witness against himself.
Last edited by Braineack; 10-16-2014 at 12:08 PM.
Reply
0
0
10-17-2014, 07:45 AM
#3209
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,499
Total Cats: 4,080
Sleeping 7-year-old girl shot in head during no-knock police raid on wrong home | Police State USA
DETROIT, MI — A Special Response Team shattered a family’s window in the middle of the night, hurled a flashbang onto a couch next to a sleeping girl, then charged in and shot her in the head. The hyper-aggressive tactics were made worse by the fact that police had taken it upon themselves to raid both sides of a duplex, when their suspect was only known to reside in one of them.
...
The trigger man was 37-year-old Officer Joseph Weekley, who both drove the armored personnel carrier and led the team through Jones’s door. Wielding a ballistic shield and an MP5, the 14-year DPD veteran claimed that he lost control of his weapon, but not for the reason one would expect. He blamed Aiyana’s grandma.
Officer Weekley’s novel defense was that Mertilla Jones rose up as he entered the apartment and “reached for his gun.” In his version of events, contact with grandmother caused him to pull the trigger of his submachine gun, subsequently striking the sleeping girl.
...
Officer Joseph Weekley stood trial for a second time in September 2014. This time the more serious charge of manslaughter was dismissed, and Weekley’s trial revolved around the charge of careless or reckless firing of a weapon causing death, which carries a potential 2 year prison sentence.
Prosecutor Rob Moran again poked holes in the police narrative. If Mertilla Jones grabbed for Weekley’s gun, as the officer alleged, then why did it take hours for police to place her in handcuffs, he asked. Wouldn’t police detain and arrest her immediately?
The prosecution also showed using forensic evidence that Mertilla Jones’ fingerprints were not among those found on Weekley’s gun.
Jurors ultimately deadlocked in a 7-5 split in favor of acquittal and could not agree about whether Weekley was negligent or not. Deliberations went on for four days.
Judge Hathaway again declared it to be a mistrial in October 2014 when no unanimous verdict could be reached. At this point, prosecutors could either attempt a third trial, or decline to proceed with further prosecution.
...
The trigger man was 37-year-old Officer Joseph Weekley, who both drove the armored personnel carrier and led the team through Jones’s door. Wielding a ballistic shield and an MP5, the 14-year DPD veteran claimed that he lost control of his weapon, but not for the reason one would expect. He blamed Aiyana’s grandma.
Officer Weekley’s novel defense was that Mertilla Jones rose up as he entered the apartment and “reached for his gun.” In his version of events, contact with grandmother caused him to pull the trigger of his submachine gun, subsequently striking the sleeping girl.
...
Officer Joseph Weekley stood trial for a second time in September 2014. This time the more serious charge of manslaughter was dismissed, and Weekley’s trial revolved around the charge of careless or reckless firing of a weapon causing death, which carries a potential 2 year prison sentence.
Prosecutor Rob Moran again poked holes in the police narrative. If Mertilla Jones grabbed for Weekley’s gun, as the officer alleged, then why did it take hours for police to place her in handcuffs, he asked. Wouldn’t police detain and arrest her immediately?
The prosecution also showed using forensic evidence that Mertilla Jones’ fingerprints were not among those found on Weekley’s gun.
Jurors ultimately deadlocked in a 7-5 split in favor of acquittal and could not agree about whether Weekley was negligent or not. Deliberations went on for four days.
Judge Hathaway again declared it to be a mistrial in October 2014 when no unanimous verdict could be reached. At this point, prosecutors could either attempt a third trial, or decline to proceed with further prosecution.
Reply
0
0
10-17-2014, 07:49 AM
#3210
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,499
Total Cats: 4,080
Report Explores Speed Trap Towns In St Louis, Missouri
The group Better Together St. Louis on Wednesday further explored the issue with a study of the county's 82 separate courts which generated $61,152,087 in revenue, primarily from speeding tickets. This is roughly half of the revenue generated by fines in the entire state, even though only 22 percent of the population lives in the county.
"There is sufficient evidence, both of practice and intent, for the conclusion to be drawn that municipal courts are not being used as instruments of justice and public safety, but rather as revenue generators for municipalities that would otherwise struggle or simply be unable to survive," the report explained. "However, not all revenue from fines comes from residents of the particular municipality collecting the fines. This is especially true of those municipalities that include parts of I-70, I-170, and I-270. A motorist driving to the airport from Clayton or from downtown St. Louis may encounter three or four patrol cars with radar from three or more separate municipalities. These highways may be the most over-policed roadways in the state."
In fourteen municipalities, fines are the biggest single source of revenue. Current law caps the amount of fine revenue that can be generated by a municipality to 30 percent of the budget, but only 8 of the municipalities exceeded that threshold. Better Together's report recommends reducing the trigger to 10 percent, which would force 40 of the 90 municipalities in the area to reduce their ticketing efforts. The report condemns the extreme tactics taken by courts to collect fines, especially from poorer residents.
"These courts frequently go to extreme measures in order to collect fines and fees," the report stated. "Tactics include locking up citizens without the means to pay their fines, and issuing warrants to those who do not appear (often out of fear that their inability to pay will result in them being locked up). While municipal judges are permitted under Missouri law to pursue other methods of collection including private debt collection, the establishment of payment plans, or even the reduction of a fine, these 'softer' methods often go unutilized."
"There is sufficient evidence, both of practice and intent, for the conclusion to be drawn that municipal courts are not being used as instruments of justice and public safety, but rather as revenue generators for municipalities that would otherwise struggle or simply be unable to survive," the report explained. "However, not all revenue from fines comes from residents of the particular municipality collecting the fines. This is especially true of those municipalities that include parts of I-70, I-170, and I-270. A motorist driving to the airport from Clayton or from downtown St. Louis may encounter three or four patrol cars with radar from three or more separate municipalities. These highways may be the most over-policed roadways in the state."
In fourteen municipalities, fines are the biggest single source of revenue. Current law caps the amount of fine revenue that can be generated by a municipality to 30 percent of the budget, but only 8 of the municipalities exceeded that threshold. Better Together's report recommends reducing the trigger to 10 percent, which would force 40 of the 90 municipalities in the area to reduce their ticketing efforts. The report condemns the extreme tactics taken by courts to collect fines, especially from poorer residents.
"These courts frequently go to extreme measures in order to collect fines and fees," the report stated. "Tactics include locking up citizens without the means to pay their fines, and issuing warrants to those who do not appear (often out of fear that their inability to pay will result in them being locked up). While municipal judges are permitted under Missouri law to pursue other methods of collection including private debt collection, the establishment of payment plans, or even the reduction of a fine, these 'softer' methods often go unutilized."
Reply
0
0
10-20-2014, 12:57 PM
#3213
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,499
Total Cats: 4,080
seriously listen to this aircraft call out speeders to the ground patrol:
Caught this today on Highway 2 just out of Wenatchee. WSP had their aircraft up to catch speeders in the 60mph section of Hwy 2. Apparently there was a "DRE" drug recognition expert conference up in Lake Chelan today- so the WSP plane caught several marked and unmarked (and a motorcycle) doing well above the speed limit (26mph over in at least once case)
The aircraft stopped calling out the speeds until ground units would confirm they were or were not a police car. If they were a police car they didn't get stopped.
Watch the video and see what you think. Seems like the Washington State Patrol is okay with officers driving 20+ mph over the limit when not responding to any call or emergency.
Caught this today on Highway 2 just out of Wenatchee. WSP had their aircraft up to catch speeders in the 60mph section of Hwy 2. Apparently there was a "DRE" drug recognition expert conference up in Lake Chelan today- so the WSP plane caught several marked and unmarked (and a motorcycle) doing well above the speed limit (26mph over in at least once case)
The aircraft stopped calling out the speeds until ground units would confirm they were or were not a police car. If they were a police car they didn't get stopped.
Watch the video and see what you think. Seems like the Washington State Patrol is okay with officers driving 20+ mph over the limit when not responding to any call or emergency.
Reply
0
0
10-20-2014, 01:16 PM
#3214
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Maryville TN
Posts: 878
Total Cats: 79
seriously listen to this aircraft call out speeders to the ground patrol:
Washington State Patrol Aircraft catches multiple police cars speeding and does nothing. - YouTube
Caught this today on Highway 2 just out of Wenatchee. WSP had their aircraft up to catch speeders in the 60mph section of Hwy 2. Apparently there was a "DRE" drug recognition expert conference up in Lake Chelan today- so the WSP plane caught several marked and unmarked (and a motorcycle) doing well above the speed limit (26mph over in at least once case)
The aircraft stopped calling out the speeds until ground units would confirm they were or were not a police car. If they were a police car they didn't get stopped.
Watch the video and see what you think. Seems like the Washington State Patrol is okay with officers driving 20+ mph over the limit when not responding to any call or emergency.
Washington State Patrol Aircraft catches multiple police cars speeding and does nothing. - YouTube
Caught this today on Highway 2 just out of Wenatchee. WSP had their aircraft up to catch speeders in the 60mph section of Hwy 2. Apparently there was a "DRE" drug recognition expert conference up in Lake Chelan today- so the WSP plane caught several marked and unmarked (and a motorcycle) doing well above the speed limit (26mph over in at least once case)
The aircraft stopped calling out the speeds until ground units would confirm they were or were not a police car. If they were a police car they didn't get stopped.
Watch the video and see what you think. Seems like the Washington State Patrol is okay with officers driving 20+ mph over the limit when not responding to any call or emergency.
Reply
0
0
10-24-2014, 07:18 AM
#3217
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,499
Total Cats: 4,080
Man Calls a Suicide Prevention Hotline, SWAT Team Shows Up and Kills Him | The Free Thought Project
don't you wish we all had the same freedom? That's so Zimmerman of them...
A Roy, Utah man, Jose Calzada, 35, placed a call to a suicide prevention hotline at 4:00 a.m. Tuesday morning and threatened to kill himself, seven hour later he was shot and killed by police, according to law enforcement.
According to ABC 4, neighbors described Calzada as a quiet, friendly man, who was divorced and now lived in the home with his girlfriend and her children.
The first tragic mistake in this case was made when the Weber County Consolidated Dispatch Center sent officers to the residence rather than some type of crisis response team trained to deal with suicidal individuals.
From previous cases, such as that of Jason Turk, who was shot twice in the face after a suicide call to 9-1-1 by his wife, or that of Christian Alberto Sierra, who was suffering from depression and had attempted suicide when police showed up and shot him four times, killing him, most know all too well what happens when you send officers to “assist” people threatening suicide.
Subsequently, a SWAT team came to the residence and “negotiated” with Calzada for more than seven hours before taking his life.
“At some point those negotiations failed and unfortunately the SWAT team was involved in a shooting, and the subject is now deceased,” said Roy PD spokesman Matt Gwynn.
Eyewitness Ron Smith told the Standard-Examiner that he heard “one shot, and then a pause, and then four or five shots after that, that were very rapid.”
Specifics of the case were not released but Gwynn was sure to explain the cop logic of reasonableness stating, “Officers are authorized to stop a threat whenever their life is threatened, or the life of another is threatened. And at that point if the officer feels he is justified, he may act to stop that threat.”
According to ABC 4, neighbors described Calzada as a quiet, friendly man, who was divorced and now lived in the home with his girlfriend and her children.
The first tragic mistake in this case was made when the Weber County Consolidated Dispatch Center sent officers to the residence rather than some type of crisis response team trained to deal with suicidal individuals.
From previous cases, such as that of Jason Turk, who was shot twice in the face after a suicide call to 9-1-1 by his wife, or that of Christian Alberto Sierra, who was suffering from depression and had attempted suicide when police showed up and shot him four times, killing him, most know all too well what happens when you send officers to “assist” people threatening suicide.
Subsequently, a SWAT team came to the residence and “negotiated” with Calzada for more than seven hours before taking his life.
“At some point those negotiations failed and unfortunately the SWAT team was involved in a shooting, and the subject is now deceased,” said Roy PD spokesman Matt Gwynn.
Eyewitness Ron Smith told the Standard-Examiner that he heard “one shot, and then a pause, and then four or five shots after that, that were very rapid.”
Specifics of the case were not released but Gwynn was sure to explain the cop logic of reasonableness stating, “Officers are authorized to stop a threat whenever their life is threatened, or the life of another is threatened. And at that point if the officer feels he is justified, he may act to stop that threat.”
Reply
0
0
