GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-12-2013, 07:56   #676
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,559
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
The group in his example were the police, not the citizens.

But if you want to lump the citizens into a group, the Constitution refers to them as The People. They're the folks for whom the Bill of Rights was written, to protect them from the State.
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Read it again. He's talking about the police. The police are the group

I'm not answering for him. Your question was flawed because you didn't understand.
Speaking of not understanding...MKEgal, is definitely a woman, thus the "gal" in the screen name. Just Google MKEgal.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 08:15   #677
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,559
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Neither.

Ill give you the benefit of the doubt on that one! I usually find Taco Bell to be more reactionary immediately after eating it

Something like that. Intuition is a trait that not everyone has.

Touche'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio Copper View Post
What is it that you do for a living, again?
Answer?
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 08:34   #678
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,559
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
But best of all is 18USC241, titled Conspiracy Against Rights.
It's a felony.

I know it's been used against the KKK.
Would like to find instances of it being used against other groups, such as the officers involved in the searches we're discussing here.
I've seen video of them pointing rifles at people & forcing them out of their homes w/ hands on head, as well as pointing a rifle at the neighbor who was filming it.
From the above link:
Quote:
Quote:
18 USC § 241 - Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Which specific acts enumerated in the above were committed by members of law enforcement in Watertown supporting a suit under § 241?
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 08:52   #679
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,676


Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Speaking of not understanding...MKEgal, is definitely a woman, thus the "gal" in the screen name. Just Google MKEgal.
Of course that is completely key to the discussion and clearly changes meaning. Thank you for pointing out that I should have read that post with a sexy female voice in my head. It truly makes all the difference.

Wait, not working. Countrygun still doesn't understand.

Thanks Russ! Johnny on the spot as always.

So what exactly was the point of your post here?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 09:43   #680
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,559
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
...So what exactly was the point of your post here?
Notwithstanding your other snide remarks, understanding, cf, understanding, attention to details...What else don't you know or understand about MKEgal?

How about this, cf. You helped countrygun understand MKEgal's post, thus you understand what she meant by it, right?

So, I'll put the same question to you that I put to her...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
But best of all is 18USC241, titled Conspiracy Against Rights.
It's a felony.

I know it's been used against the KKK.
Would like to find instances of it being used against other groups, such as the officers involved in the searches we're discussing here.
I've seen video of them pointing rifles at people & forcing them out of their homes w/ hands on head, as well as pointing a rifle at the neighbor who was filming it.
From the above link:
Quote:
Quote:
18 USC § 241 - Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Which specific acts enumerated in the above were committed by members of law enforcement in Watertown supporting a suit under § 241?
How about it, cf?

Thanks...
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 09:52   #681
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,676


Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Notwithstanding your other snide remarks, understanding, cf, understanding, attention to details...What else don't you know or understand about MKEgal?

How about this, cf. You helped countrygun understand MKEgal's post, thus you understand what she meant by it, right?

So, I'll put the same question to you that I put to her...How about it, cf?

Thanks...
Try to stay with the line of discussion Russ. Countrygun confused parties. I corrected him because it made his question nonsensical. Countrygun apparently didn't even understand that. Then you chimed in with snide remarks of your own to highlight that I didn't know this poster was a female......like that matters.

So thanks again for the tremendous contributions.

As to the specifics in your question, I haven't the slightest. Not even really sure what is being discussed. I noticed a post by countrygun and checked to see if it met the same intellectual standard that his other posts reflected. It did.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 12:01   #682
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,559
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
But best of all is 18USC241, titled Conspiracy Against Rights.
It's a felony.

I know it's been used against the KKK.
Would like to find instances of it being used against other groups, such as the officers involved in the searches we're discussing here.
I've seen video of them pointing rifles at people & forcing them out of their homes w/ hands on head, as well as pointing a rifle at the neighbor who was filming it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
I am trying hard to figure out what "group" these citizens belonged to 5 minutes before the Police arrived

Is there some kind of secret organization in the Boston area that the police singled out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
The group in his example were the police, not the citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Well, since you are answering for MKEgal maybe you can explain, by your definition "the People" are "the group" then what did this,

"Would like to find instances of it being used against other groups"

mean?

what other groups could that poster have meant ???
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Read it again. He's talking about the police. The police are the group

I'm not answering for him. Your question was flawed because you didn't understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
As to the specifics in your question, I haven't the slightest. Not even really sure what is being discussed.
This thread's title is: "Door-to-door searches during manhunt". Where exactly did you begin reading in this thread? Wait, you have 103 posts in this thread. You don't know what it is about?

Oh, you didn't read MKEgal's entire post. Okay.... It's real simple.

Well, thanks for playing.

Wait, I would have thought you would be very interested in MKEgal's post based on your posts here and the 168 posts in the Watertown search videos are surfacing! thread.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 14:43   #683
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
What CF is attempting to overlook with his over strained attempt to question my understanding, is what I was trying to get an in Re: 18USC241. That would be the part that was omitted by MKEgal in the citation. A very short sentence that really didn't add much to the size of the citation, but was omitted nonetheless, to be later added when the full citation was quoted..

"If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—"



It brings into question the phrasing of the Statute and the need to prove "intent". Without establishing that the LE agencies had "Conspired to" "to" meaning "with the intent " The missing part also uses "with intent".

This brings about the question of LE as a "group" and their "intent". Now given that most LE agencies are under Statue themselves and are representatives of the people condoned by Statute it would seem that the citizenry itself is part of "the group" and LE being merely their Agents. I cannot see how an intent to "injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate" or "prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—" can be established in the actions of the LEAs. The selective exclusion, in the original citation, omits the intent factor and that leaves us to conclude that the mere existence of the capability is a violation. With the capability having been established by Statute it leaves the people themselves as co-conspirators in the "group" and the police, again, merely being the Agents.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 15:28   #684
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,559
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
This brings about the question of LE as a "group" and their "intent". Now given that most LE agencies are under Statue themselves and are representatives of the people condoned by Statute it would seem that the citizenry itself is part of "the group" and LE being merely their Agents. I cannot see how an intent to "injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate" or "prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—" can be established in the actions of the LEAs. The selective exclusion, in the original citation, omits the intent factor and that leaves us to conclude that the mere existence of the capability is a violation. With the capability having been established by Statute it leaves the people themselves as co-conspirators in the "group" and the police, again, merely being the Agents.
No....
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 15:55   #685
ranger1968
Senior Member
 
ranger1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefWPD View Post
As a practical matter, you have no choice but to let the officers search. The situation is an exigent one and their actions would be deemed reasonable should it come to some sort of litigation.

To the GTers who would tell the officers they couldn't enter, well, should you ever be in that actual situation let us all know how it works out for you.
Where's the exigency?

There's no "fresh pursuit" , no one actually saw the person enter the residence, no one is screaming for help, there is no immediate need for entry.....

It's a neighborhood lock down with a door to door canvass in the area where the suspect was last seen.....hours ago.

There's no exigency there at all.

I don't think that it would be found "reasonable" by any court;

It was a heavy handed tactic, and it crossed the line.

Last edited by ranger1968; 06-12-2013 at 16:00..
ranger1968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 16:13   #686
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
No....
Who armed the police?
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 17:36   #687
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,676


Quote:
Originally Posted by ranger1968 View Post
Where's the exigency?

There's no "fresh pursuit" , no one actually saw the person enter the residence, no one is screaming for help, there is no immediate need for entry.....

It's a neighborhood lock down with a door to door canvass in the area where the suspect was last seen.....hours ago.

There's no exigency there at all.

I don't think that it would be found "reasonable" by any court;

It was a heavy handed tactic, and it crossed the line.
It does not meet the criteria that have been affirmed by the SCOTUS as exigency.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 17:38   #688
ranger1968
Senior Member
 
ranger1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
It does not meet the criteria that have been affirmed by the SCOTUS as exigency.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
My point exactly;

There WAS no exigency;

It was a heavy handed tactic, with no foundation in law.
ranger1968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 17:57   #689
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Hot pursuit is not the sole measure of exigency.

When last seen the suspect was using explosives, had committed kidnapping, and attempted murder.

I am waiting for the ACLU lawsuit on behalf of the folks whose rights were so grievously violated. I'll probably be impressed with their legal arguments.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 18:02   #690
ranger1968
Senior Member
 
ranger1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Hot pursuit is not the sole measure of exigency.

When last seen the suspect was using explosives, had committed kidnapping, and attempted murder.

I am waiting for the ACLU lawsuit on behalf of the folks whose rights were so grievously violated. I'll probably be impressed with their legal arguments.

Right; but the point is NONE of the criteria for exigency were met;

If someone had seen the suspect flee into a specific house, then yes, perhaps ; even then, depending on the time delay that's debatable.

But criminal activity, especially when it's delayed by hours, is not an exigent circumstance in terms of suddenly suspending the 4th Amendment for an entire neighborhood; It simply isn't.

"this guy is a suspect in a bombing and he shot it out with the cops 5 blocks from here, we need to search your house" simply isn't going to cut it.
ranger1968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 19:34   #691
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,559
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Who armed the police?
What direct control do "The People" have over the daily actions and behavior of police department employees?
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 19:38   #692
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,676


Quote:
Originally Posted by ranger1968 View Post
Right; but the point is NONE of the criteria for exigency were met;

If someone had seen the suspect flee into a specific house, then yes, perhaps ; even then, depending on the time delay that's debatable.

But criminal activity, especially when it's delayed by hours, is not an exigent circumstance in terms of suddenly suspending the 4th Amendment for an entire neighborhood; It simply isn't.

"this guy is a suspect in a bombing and he shot it out with the cops 5 blocks from here, we need to search your house" simply isn't going to cut it.
I'm just going to warn you that while you're right, many LE here are going to disagree strongly with you but be unable to explain how it met the criteria in the proper context. I'm told many of them are commanders and supervisors.

After a while one or two might call you a name.

Stay with the simple facts that are remarkably easy to understand. Eventually someone will say that it was exigent until a judge says otherwise. (My personal favorite). Another will challenge you to file suit even though you have no standing. One will ask you if anyone was forced from their home. Generally all will agree that nothing on that day outweighed the need to catch the terrorist.

Tread carefully. Don't be too right. If any look foolish you could get frac'd.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 19:49   #693
ranger1968
Senior Member
 
ranger1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,997
Well, since I'm one of the cops, will take my chances with them;

In the Boston situation, there simply was no exigent circumstance which would pass Constitutional muster;

In no way could anyone articulate that if immediate entry were not made into any specific location (let alone the entire neighborhood) , that here would have been an immediate danger to any person's life or safety; there was no "fresh pursuit", ; there was no immediate danger of evidence being destroyed that could be articulated;

Therefore, no exigency existed;

That there was a "public safety concern" based on actions which had occurred hours prior, in another location (a block away, 2 blocks away, down the street, etc) isn't sufficient to claim an exigency and circumvent the 4th Amendment; it's just not enough.

That's the way it is.
ranger1968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 20:09   #694
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
What direct control do "The People" have over the daily actions and behavior of police department employees?
I am pointing towards the concept of "Consent of the governed"

Eventually the responsibility comes back to the people themselves for what they allow either by overtly authorizing, supporting or tacitly tolerating. And yes, police power derives from the people.

In this instance it seems as though the people of Boston have given their consent as a "group". I see no one burning the Police Chief in effigy yet.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 21:26   #695
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,559
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
I am pointing towards the concept of "Consent of the governed"

Eventually the responsibility comes back to the people themselves for what they allow either by overtly authorizing, supporting or tacitly tolerating. And yes, police power derives from the people.

In this instance it seems as though the people of Boston have given their consent as a "group". I see no one burning the Police Chief in effigy yet.
And that is what is troubling a lot of people, and why I keep asking, "Have any of the homeowners in Watertown filed suit based on the actions of law enforcement during the searches?"

You are saying, claiming, alleging, that the absence of a lawsuit thus far implies authorization of the police actions by all the citizens of Watertown.

I disagree.

What is the statute of limitation on filing a civil rights action? That window hasn't closed yet, has it?

A better argument for you to make is the whether the lack of objections might encourage repetition under similar circumstances, or even lesser circumstances.

You know we have members here on GT actively involved in reviewing the actions taken in Boston and Watertown, evaluating those actions, applying the results to existing policy and procedures, and writing new where necessary. They may or may not weigh in. That's up to them.

We also have members of law enforcement here with years of experience in civil rights issues involving law enforcement. They are weighing in.

But, until a lawsuit is filed and tested in court(s) and legal precedence is established, OR, until legislation is introduced and passed addressing the various concerns, this is all a discussion of opinions. Some of those opinions will be based on unsupported conjecture and untested theory. Some will be based on well grounded knowledge and personal experience.

__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 21:32   #696
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranger1968 View Post
Well, since I'm one of the cops, will take my chances with them;

In the Boston situation, there simply was no exigent circumstance which would pass Constitutional muster;

In no way could anyone articulate that if immediate entry were not made into any specific location (let alone the entire neighborhood) , that here would have been an immediate danger to any person's life or safety; there was no "fresh pursuit", ; there was no immediate danger of evidence being destroyed that could be articulated;

Therefore, no exigency existed;

That there was a "public safety concern" based on actions which had occurred hours prior, in another location (a block away, 2 blocks away, down the street, etc) isn't sufficient to claim an exigency and circumvent the 4th Amendment; it's just not enough.

That's the way it is.
Wow, thank you for this post. I hope there are many more like you out there.
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 00:12   #697
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,676


Quote:
Originally Posted by ranger1968 View Post
Well, since I'm one of the cops, will take my chances with them;

In the Boston situation, there simply was no exigent circumstance which would pass Constitutional muster;

In no way could anyone articulate that if immediate entry were not made into any specific location (let alone the entire neighborhood) , that here would have been an immediate danger to any person's life or safety; there was no "fresh pursuit", ; there was no immediate danger of evidence being destroyed that could be articulated;

Therefore, no exigency existed;

That there was a "public safety concern" based on actions which had occurred hours prior, in another location (a block away, 2 blocks away, down the street, etc) isn't sufficient to claim an exigency and circumvent the 4th Amendment; it's just not enough.

That's the way it is.
Dead spot on. Thank you for the comments.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 00:13   #698
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,676


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble Noon View Post
Wow, thank you for this post. I hope there are many more like you out there.
Only took 693 posts to find one


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 00:23   #699
OldSchool64
Platinum Membership
Senior Member
 
OldSchool64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Only took 693 posts to find one
Where there's one there's more.

Still hope for This Country even if the people of Massachusetts don't seem to give a ____
__________________
still living & learning
OldSchool64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 14:17   #700
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSchool64 View Post
Where there's one there's more.

Still hope for This Country even if the people of Massachusetts don't seem to give a ____

And that is really more of it than people want to acknowledge.


How many times do we, on gun forums, make comments about the stupid gun control laws in Mass? Well this is the other side of the trade they have been willing to make. Around this area it isn't uncommon to have to ask to search out buildings and property if there is a possibility the quarry may be there. I have talked with members of our SO about the possibilities. Almost never is the request refused. BUT, even in town proper, there would be very little reason to search homes in such a situation unless the goal was to protect the suspect. In some kind of incident like that there would be few unarmed and defenseless households and those folks would probably stay in close contact with an armed neighbor. Out in the rural areas? The suspect would surely be better off surrendering than trying to strongarm home. It is just the way of the people here. Our LEOS would have a hopeless task with their numbers, ridiculous to even contemplate but that is what we have and how we choose to have it.

Is it any real surprise that the people of Boston do not raise a whimper about what happened? That is what most of them want that is what they expect. The laws that have disarmed them were not forced down their throats at gunpoint by a dictator, there own elected officials disarmed them with their approval. Remember that is the way they do it in Boston with an unarmed populace and a large enough LE presence. If we believe in "State's Rights" well then I guess they have the right to do it that way if they want. Being willingly disarmed was more than just a decision about owning an object. It was a statement about who they believe is responsible for their safety. It was sign of their mental state and "Geist" if you will.

It is really a waste of time to say that the sheep dogs were too aggressive chasing the wolf. The sheep aren't going to protect themselves. And the have repeatedly voted to remain sheep.
,
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
arrogance of ignorance, brownshirts, jbterrific, no court needed, statists, the usual suspects
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:18.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 783
169 Members
614 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42