tvc184

It just means that when things get bad enough, even the media snow jobs cannot cover it up.

That means that when Obama won a super majority of both houses of Congress on his coattails, he would by your logic keep it. That logic ended only two years later when Republicans took back the House with a stunning 63 seats changing hands and 6 in the Senate. Then in the next mid-terms, the Republicans gained an almost as stunning 9 seats in the Senate and yet another 13 in the House. Apparently some people are changing their minds and what is reported or debated on is having some influence. I can guarantee that about 35% of the public will always vote Democrat and a like number will always vote Republican. What changes is the other 30% that switches back and forth and also who shows up at the polls no matter who they are for.

You are correct, they aren't the same. What is also correct is that if you allow one group to do it under protection of the Constitution, you have to allow all groups to do it and that means atheists, satanists, Muslims, etc. The entire point of the Constitution is so that majority does not rule over individual rights.

There was a case locally in the news a few months ago and it was on audio but not video. Actually the video was running but the officers were inside of an apartment. Hearing the exchange, I am almost positive the officers were wrong in that particular case. I saw many social media comments on both sides of that incident. I saw a lot of cop haters that were simply saying things that were not legally correct. The ol', "An officer cannot blah blah", etc. Sorry, yes he can. The oddest part about it was the police defenders in that case were just as bad. "He is a good guy..." or "The suspect was a liar.." or "The suspect was only looking for money...", etc. Maybe all of that is true however, from what I heard, the officers on scene were legally wrong and made an unlawful arrest and possibly unjustified force. It is like a political argument where people are drawing sides based on who they like the most. Kind of like my party is better than your party or Nederland is better than PNG because it is my hometown. There is no rational basis for it and it almost like choosing a favorite color. None of that should enter law enforcement. Bullets has ridden with me enough to know that I do not defend officers that I think or in many case, know are wrong. Some things just cannot be justified. The part that I don't like is that all officer mistakes or maybe most of them are not worthy of criminal charges or termination. Then the other side wants to make the suspects into a hero like the Michael Brown case. Brown committed at least two felonies and was shot charging an officer. Groups like black lives matter have made him out to be a hero and all officers as villains. That even after both the state and federal governments found no wrong doing on the part of the officer and obvious criminal acts by Brown. Even assuming the facts changed and the shooting of Brown was unjustified, he was still a felon. That is the part that I have a hard time with. If one officer makes a mistake then all officers are bad but if a felon is arrested, shot or struck while not complying with police orders which are very likely lawful, he is a hero.

I thought of the same thing about the Katy, TX teacher in the news wanting the junior high school students to say that God was a myth or fail a test. Atheism is as much a constitutional right as Christianity. The teacher is wrong for making passing or failing a test based on such a statement but when you allow teachers to make belief or disbelief in a religion part of class, that knife cuts both ways.

Some of the problem is that no amount of force looks good. There is simply no way you can use force even when completely lawful and have it look good. I have seen many cases where the officer clearly was lawful in his actions but it looks and sounds terrible. From the comments I see you would think the law says it has to be a fair fight to take someone into custody or that an officer must suffer some kind of injury before any force can be justified. That is just plain stupid. It is very hard to convict officers of abuse both in state and federal court because the law is in favor of the officers using force (as I am sure that you know) as it has to be. Look at SCOTUS rulings and time after time to protect officers, we have votes like 9-0, 8-1 or 7-2 in using force or detentions. The laws and court rulings say that you have to comply with officers in most circumstances and you cannot even resist an unlawful arrest. For some reason, especially lately, we see a rash of non-compliance and it seems to be centered around a segment of the population. I sure seems from what I have seen that the message has gotten out that if an officer even speaks you a person then the officer is somehow violating the law or someone's rights. It is like people feel emboldened to break the law or resist even lawful uses of force. I feel like this trend will not end anytime soon. About 99% of the problem can be ended if somehow you can get the word out that compliance with an officer's commands is generally required and any resistance might open up the person to a lawful use of force against him. Instead we have people that are spitting out nonsense and people believing that if they get arrested, they have the chance to visit the White House.

The blanket support sure isn't in favor of the police at the moment.

Back to the actual topic, it obviously looks like more force was used than necessary. I don't see how he justifies it. He didn't really hurt her and the news reports use such words as a "beat down". The officer probably could have killed her easily if he wished and he just tossed her around. Due to his size and strength she looked like a rag doll and therein lies the problem. I think the officer likely had a lawful authority to put his hands on the student, maybe arrest her (according to the laws in that state), and use necessary force. He is in trouble because that force went above "necessary". But in cases like this you have people like Nancy Grace (who hates more of the world and all men). I was at my mother's house tonight and she unfortunately had CNN on and Grace was spitting out her man hater gibberish. She said something like, "The only classroom disruption that this girl was involved in was being the victim of a police beat down". Really Nancy? You saw what happened in that classroom before the video started or is it that as a lawyer you know that you are spitting out nonsense but your ratings are dependent on your nonsensical rants? So..... did the officer have the authority to take her into custody or use force to do so? Without knowing any more than what is on the video I would still say that yes he did. Did the amount of force used against her comply with "necessary force"? I don't see how.

How disturbing is it? Can it be as disturbing as the FBI UCR stats that show in 2013 one race of people committed 55% of all homicides where the actor was know and that is more than 420% more than their population? Think about that for a minute if we didn't have stats to back it up. We have 13% of the population committing 55% of the murders. If we have statistics to back up that the most violent crime is committed at such a high rate, can that same conclusion be reasonable for other areas? Those same stats show that about 90% of all murders were committed by men. Is that fact prejudicial? Does it show a sexual bias against men? It is easy to use stats as stand alone questions but I trust the FBI stats more than some of the stuff that simply pops up on the internet, like your next post that showed the post above was at least partially bogus. Does it make things worth looking at? Sure. Do stats alone prove anything? If so then we can conclude that one population is at least 400% more violent than the rest of them combined.

NEWSFLASH: That makes it extremely dangerous!! I'm going out on a limb and guessing that being hit by a board (or any other debris) flying through the air at 280 mph is not going to have good results.

Love the media and their headlines. It is an "extremely dangerous" Cat 5 hurricane. Is that as opposed to a fairly mild Cat 5 storm?

That little tidbit keeps going over people's heads or they play ostrich and stick their heads in the sand and act like they don't see it. The Bill Clinton excuse. Lying under oath is legal if you are a Clinton.

So you are admitting that Hillary and the State Department ignored the warnings and are using Bush as an analogy?

Did you scale it down to avatar or icon size?

Apparently he fooled a bunch of cops.

It looks like the only thing this had to do with a school is because it was where at least one idiot met other people. Never let the facts get in the way of a good headline............

Well, that might be a true rhetorical statement/question if all 6,000 went to sanctuary cities, never left those sanctuary cities, actually intended to vote and if 6,000 votes spread across the entire country of 50 states could actually sway a vote in any particular state. In the most recent presidential election the closest states in votes was the small population state of Alaska won by the Republicans by 44,000 votes and Florida won by the Democrats by 64,000 votes. No, I can't see where 6,000 more votes scattered across the entire country, even if all voting for the same person, would have any effect on a presidential election. I figured that anyone could see my statement as a joke and I can't believe that somehow actually could see this as a voter scam.

That would not be correct. Very few people in any case serve out their sentences. There is good time, parole, etc.

I am wondering how anyone wouldn't take it as a joke.

With an expected close election coming up, more Democratic voters are being released in time for November 2016.

Entry level police officers don't make that bad. The other professions? Maybe. I think out of teachers, firefighters, military and medics, the police are far out in front. In the Golden Triangle area, the three largest police agencies start out at about $55K+ by the end of the first year. That is with a GED and less than 5 months in the police academy. In this area a patrolman (equal to roughly a military private) tops out at about $75K base with incentives on top of that. I think PAPD starts out of the academy at about $25.50 per hour and BPD starts at about $26.50. The next step/rank up, sergeants, makes $84-$90K base w/incentives (longevity/certificates/shift differential) and that does not including overtime. EMTs/Paramedics are the ones that take a beating.

No they would not. They cannot write a document that speaks of personal freedom and then say.... "As long as you agree with my ideas". I believe that they were intelligent beyond what many or most people today can comprehend. With freedom comes the belief that we can have a disagreement in lifestyles. I believe they saw that and documented it. Even when you say that they were vague about the "creator", if you take them for their words then they agreed that there was a creator and therefore not atheists that believe that is no creator.

It is more like propaganda was formally used almost exclusively by governments but now with social media, every individual can get in the act.

I upped my order to 4,000 rounds because other people wanted some.

I just ordered 2,000 rounds of 9mm.