 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / March 2008police
If a lot of people look at my video the truth might be exposed. I would like people to look at my video many times to increase number. Police have done crimes. Police taped. Only audio. do not use replay - it probably does not increase number increase number -leave youtube and go back to youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV_RaVVGrt8 Kurt Stocklmeir > If a lot of people look at my video the truth might be exposed. > I would like people to look at my video many times to increase number. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Kurt Stocklmeir Why are you so concerned about the number of people who watch this? looking for more money? That may be your opinion but you can't prove it by me. The only time I have been stopped by a cop was when it looked like, or was actually, doing something I should not have been doing. I Back in 1956 I was pulled over, taken out of my car and told to lay face down on the ground. I had on a $600 suit and did not want to do that. It took two seconds for to two Philadelphia cops to make one 235 LB 6'2" black former sailor, do what they asked. I was released, with an apology and an offer to pay for my dry cleaning a half hour later, after it was determined my white topped black '55 Buick Century HT with the same first two numbers on the plate, was not the white topped black '55 Buick Century HT used in the robbery of a drug store I had passed twenty minutes sooner over in Jersey. Back in the day I didn't take $#it from nobody and I talked to an attorney. He told me forget it, the cops were doing their job. The fact is the Supreme Court has always determined one must obey the orders of a law enforcement officer. Whether his order was lawful, will eventually be determined by a judge. If you refuse his orders you can be held for investigation to determine if you can or will be cited or arrested for what you were doing. Albeit it violating traffic laws or robbing a bank If you resist the officer has the authority to use whatever force, including lethal force, is necessary to restrain you, to take you into custody for his own pertection and that of society. If the officer did something he did not have the authority to do, then you can sue. Innocent until proven guilty?? What makes you believe a police offciers proves you guilty, in any event? "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:_Xkxj.33923$v57.16898@trnddc05... > Mike hunt wrote: >> Who was it that said if you don't do the crime you do not need to do the >> time ;) > And a lot of people are stopped for dwb - driving while black. > > There is no excuse for police abuse. Innocent until proven guilty. > ...I talked to an attorney. He told me forget it, the cops were doing their job. > The fact is the Supreme Court has always determined one must obey the > orders of a law enforcement officer. Yes, and rulings like that are destroying due process, one of our fundamental rights as Americans. In very simple terms, due process requires a government person to file a complaint in the proper court, and the court takes over from there. Any action against the citizen is taken by the court, not the government person who filed the complaint. That is how your rights as an American citizen are protected. The court protects you and your rights from unilateral action by the government. Due process also allows anyone, government person or not, to act as necessary to stop actual harm to a citizen or their property, and act as necessary to prevent imminent harm to a citizen or their property. Notice I didn't say "crime". I said actual harm and imminent harm. That is the true definition of "crime", as ruled multiple times by that same Supreme Court. Under true due process, suspicion of doing harm would not be justification for a government person to act against a citizen. The government person would have to file a complaint against the citizen in the proper court, and let the court take over from there. Under true due process, suspicion of violating some law would not be justification for a government person to act against a citizen. The government person would have to file a complaint against the citizen in the proper court, and let the court take over from there. Under true due process, "probable cause" would not exist. Acting against a citizen on "probable cause" is a massive violation of that citizen's due process right. Note that I said TRUE due process right. We don't have true due process in America anymore. Our true right of due process has effectively been destroyed. The judicial branch of government was originally intended to be a high impassible wall between citizens and government... to protect citizens from government tyranny... to protect citizens from arbitrary unilateral action by people in government. The judicial branch of government was originally intended to be THE place where our rights are protected. Courts are abdicating that responsibility. Courts are now allowing government people to BYPASS the courts and act directly against citizens in all manner of circumstances that fall way short of being actual harm or imminent harm to other citizens or their property. That is tyranny. When government can bypass the courts and act unilaterally against citizens without clear evidence of actual harm or imminent harm to another citizen or their property, that is tyranny. When government can bypass the courts and act unilaterally against citizens on mere suspicion of harm to another citizen or their property, that is tyranny. When government can bypass the courts and act unilaterally against citizens on mere suspicion of violating some law, that is tyranny. When government can bypass the courts and act unilaterally against citizens just because they violated some law, that is tyranny. Why? Because violating some law is not a crime under the Supreme Court's definition of "crime." Violating some law does not constitute actual harm or imminent harm to another citizen or their property. When government figures out how to bypass the courts where our rights are protected, then our rights are no longer being protected, and we are no longer being protected from arbitrary and capricious government actions. That is tyranny, and that is what we see in America today. When "law enforcement" people can bypass the courts where our rights are protected, and act unilaterally against citizens on specious grounds like "probable cause", then our due process rights are no longer being protected, and we are no longer being protected from arbitrary and capricious actions by "law enforcement" people. That is tyranny, and that is what we see in America today. What "law enforcement" people do today is EXACTLY the same thing British troops did in the colonies. Back then it resulted in a revolutionary war, where we threw off a tyrannical British government, and removed those British troops from our soil. Will the same thing happen again? Will we untimely get so outraged by tyrannical "law enforcement" people, today's equivalent of those British troops, that we move to throw off the government putting them on the streets, and remove them from the streets? Probably not. I'd bet against it. Yes, cops are doing their job. It's the same job British troops in the colonies had: Enforce arbitrary capricious laws that often violate citizens' rights, and enforce them in a manner that ALWAYS violates a citizen's right of due process. Enforcing laws is NOT the job of the executive branch of government. It's the job of the JUDICIAL branch of government. "Law enforcement" people work for the EXECUTIIVE branch of government. They are NOT constitutionally authorized to take any action against a citizen. In fact, the Constitution doesn't authorize ANYONE to enforce laws. The Constitution authorizes county Sheriffs and deputies to enforce COURT ORDERS! It is the job of the COURTS to determine if a law even applies in the instant case, and if so, determine if there is reasonable evidence that a citizen has violated said law, and if so, determine if the citizen is to be taken into custody, and if so, issue a COURT ORDER commanding the COUNTY SHERIFF to take that person into custody. Per the Constitution, the ONLY time action is to be taken against a citizen is when a COURT ORDER has been issued setting forth what action is to be taken against a citizen, and the COUNTY SHERIFF, the judicial enforcement officer for the county, carries out that court order. THAT is due process. >> ...I talked to an attorney. He told me forget it, the cops were doing their job. >> The fact is the Supreme Court has always determined one must obey the >> orders of a law enforcement officer. > > Yes, and rulings like that are destroying due process, one of our > fundamental rights as Americans. What ruling? That was advice from an attorney. > In very simple terms, due process requires a government person to file > a complaint in the proper court, and the court takes over from there. > Any action against the citizen is taken by the court, not the > government person who filed the complaint. True. But the police also have to make sure that they are keeping safe while they do their job. There was an investigation made, but no charges were ever filed because Mike had nothing to do crime that was committed. IIRC, there was a crime committed by someone with a similar car. The police were doing their proper job when they stopped him, and the force they used was necessary under the circumstances. And they paid for any damages they caused. > That is how your rights as an American citizen are protected. The > court protects you and your rights from unilateral action by the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > necessary to stop actual harm to a citizen or their property, and act > as necessary to prevent imminent harm to a citizen or their property. That has nothing to do with due process. Due process means that if you are charged with a crime, you have the right to a proper trial. > Notice I didn't say "crime". I said actual harm and imminent harm. > That is the true definition of "crime", as ruled multiple times by [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > government person would have to file a complaint against the citizen > in the proper court, and let the court take over from there. The police are empowered to act to protect people and property. They don't have to get a court's permission stop someone who looks like someone who committed a crime. > Under true due process, suspicion of violating some law would not be > justification for a government person to act against a citizen. The > government person would have to file a complaint against the citizen > in the proper court, and let the court take over from there. The police do have the right to bring people in and question them. And people have the right to remain silent. > Under true due process, "probable cause" would not exist. Acting > against a citizen on "probable cause" is a massive violation of that > citizen's due process right. Please explain how police would investigate any crime. And how do you determine who should be tried? > Note that I said TRUE due process right. We don't have true due > process in America anymore. Our true right of due process has > effectively been destroyed. While I certainly agree that the government is not providing all the rights to privacy and that police do stop some groups unfairly, I have not seen any evidence that due process rights have been overridden in most cases. I do feel this the case with citizens held for terrorism-related cases. > The judicial branch of government was originally intended to be a high > impassible wall between citizens and government... to protect citizens [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > That is tyranny. Write the President (I am not sure he can read, but some of his aides can), your elected representatives and the newspapers. You also should educate yourself on what due process is. Jeff > When government can bypass the courts and act unilaterally against > citizens without clear evidence of actual harm or imminent harm to [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > THAT is due process. > >> ...I talked to an attorney. He told me forget it, the cops were doing their job. > >> The fact is the Supreme Court has always determined one must obey the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What ruling? That was advice from an attorney. You apparently don't read very well. > > In very simple terms, due process requires a government person to file > > a complaint in the proper court, and the court takes over from there. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > they used was necessary under the circumstances. And they paid for any > damages they caused. When they stopped him and detained him they violated his due-process right. Everything I read in your post tells me you support government tyranny. > That has nothing to do with due process. Due process means that if you > are charged with a crime, you have the right to a proper trial. And this pretty much proves you support government tyranny. > The police are empowered to act to protect people and property. They > don't have to get a court's permission stop someone who looks like > someone who committed a crime. And this absolutely proves you support government tyranny. > The police do have the right to bring people in and question them. And > people have the right to remain silent. And this further proves it. > > Under true due process, "probable cause" would not exist. Acting > > against a citizen on "probable cause" is a massive violation of that > > citizen's due process right. > > Please explain how police would investigate any crime. And how do you > determine who should be tried? I'm going to answer you questions with questions. 1) What are the three branches of government? 2) What is the job of each of those branches? > While I certainly agree that the government is not providing all the > rights to privacy and that police do stop some groups unfairly, I have > not seen any evidence that due process rights have been overridden in > most cases. I do feel this the case with citizens held for > terrorism-related cases. This cinches it. You absolutely do support government tyranny. > Write the President (I am not sure he can read, but some of his aides > can), your elected representatives and the newspapers. You also should > educate yourself on what due process is. > > Jeff I believe it is you sir who needs to learn what due process is... or at least what it used to be. I agree that the common perception of due process today is merely the right to a trial. That is exactly what police and their superiors want you to believe, so when they break your door down, ransack your house, and steal your property, merely doing "an investigation," you can smile and say "That's ok. They were just doing their job." <snip> > It is the job of the COURTS to determine if a law even applies in the > instant case, and if so, determine if there is reasonable evidence [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > THAT is due process. Once the missiles fly & 90 percent of the world's population is destroyed in an all out global thermonuclear war then it will be back to due process. It will be every man for himself & governments won't exist anymore. Who was it that said if you don't do the crime you do not need to do the time ;) > If a lot of people look at my video the truth might be exposed. > I would like people to look at my video many times to increase number. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Kurt Stocklmeir > Who was it that said if you don't do the crime you do not need to do the > time ;) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >> Kurt Stocklmeir And a lot of people are stopped for dwb - driving while black. There is no excuse for police abuse. Innocent until proven guilty. >> Who was it that said if you don't do the crime you do not need to do the time ;) >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > There is no excuse for police abuse. Innocent until proven guilty. Until the constitution turns to dust & the US (used to be A) becomes a police state & they try to disarm everyone. A big blood shed awaits them with bullets flying everywhere & lots of dead cops & civilians. Not a pretty site but stated in prophecy & it seems to be going in that direction. >>> Who was it that said if you don't do the crime you do not need to do the >>> time ;) [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > pretty > site but stated in prophecy & it seems to be going in that direction. It is all perception and motive. How do you explain black cops beating the crap out of blacks in Kenya, Niger, Ethiopia for instance? We know in North America that a black cop who arrests a black is often called an Oreo by other blacks. How do you explain black cops stopping white drivers in Detroit? Is that DWW (Driving While White?). Detroit btw has a justice system that is more black than white from top chair down, and the population is by large black, yet whites are arrested above per capita. I suppose that means the minority whites commit more crimes than the majority blacks? How do you explain blacks still selling blacks into slavery in several African nations, and more importantly how blacks here in North America who claim to be so concerned about African rights don't want to discuss, or even acknowledge the existence these things? It is so much easier to play the victim for personal gain than it is to look at reality. Modern day reality is much more like Mike Hunt says it is, most people in North American get pulled over because they have done something, or they happen to be driving the same car as someone who did, or they are in the vicinity of a crime where all cars are suspected as abetting a felon. 2Cents >>>> Who was it that said if you don't do the crime you do not need to do >>>> the time ;) [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > 2Cents If you a search of academic papers, you will see that in some communities, blacks are searched on the streets or pulled over at a higher per capita rate than whites. Jeff There are a number of so called black leaders that like to point to the statistics that show there are more blacks in prisons, as a percentage of the population, than whites. However if you do a search you will discover the far greater proportion of the crimes for which they were convicted, were perpetrated against other blacks than whites, a statistic they choose to ignore ;) >>>>> Who was it that said if you don't do the crime you do not need to do >>>>> the time ;) [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Jeff > There are a number of so called black leaders that like to point to the > statistics that show there are more blacks in prisons, as a percentage of [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >> >> Jeff Doh! Blacks also spend more time with other blacks than whites. What a racist opinion! The fact is blacks are committing more of their crimes against other black were they live, rather than going into white areas to commit crimes. Which indicates to me the cops are protecting the backs that live their by catching those criminal >> There are a number of so called black leaders that like to point to the >> statistics that show there are more blacks in prisons, as a percentage of [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > Blacks also spend more time with other blacks than whites. > What a racist opinion! The fact is blacks are committing more of their > crimes against other black were they live, rather than going into white [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] >> >> Blacks also spend more time with other blacks than whites. That's not racist. In many neighborhoods, there is one predominant ethnic group. However, if police were doing such a great job, not as many people would be arrested. Jeff > However, if police were doing such a great job, not as many people would > be arrested. One would expect the opposite to be true. Can you explain? Jack >> However, if police were doing such a great job, not as many people would >> be arrested. > > One would expect the opposite to be true. Can you explain? > > Jack If the police had the number of personnel that they feel they require, their presence would be a deterrent to crime, thus fewer arrests due to less crime. At least that's how I see it. SC Tom >> However, if police were doing such a great job, not as many people >> would be arrested. > > One would expect the opposite to be true. Can you explain? A strong police presence deters crime. Jeff > Jack >>> However, if police were doing such a great job, not as many people >>> would be arrested. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >> Jack OK, so once the strong police presence stems the tide of crime how does the local government justify maintaining the higher presence of police in that area? And what about low crime areas where police presence is minimal? How do you explain this phenomenon? >G< © >>> However, if police were doing such a great job, not as many people >>> would be arrested. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >> Jack The BEST crime deterrent would be MORE law-abiding armed citizens looking out for themselves and each other. type "fort mcmurray charter" into youtube >>>> However, if police were doing such a great job, not as many people >>>> would be arrested. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The BEST crime deterrent would be MORE law-abiding armed citizens looking > out for themselves and each other. You certainly are entitled to you own opinion no matter how convoluted it may be ;) >> What a racist opinion! The fact is blacks are committing more of their >> crimes against other black were they live, rather than going into white [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Jeff > Who was it that said if you don't do the crime you do not need to do the > time ;) Wasn't that Tony Baretta? LOL!! SC Tom |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.