On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Jim Burnes wrote:
> Apparently we have different definitions of 'protection' running
> around here. Active vs. passive protection I suppose in your
> world.
I live in the same world you do. I make no distinction between active and
passive. The reality is the SC said that i
At 11:23 AM 3/3/2000 -0500, Peter Capelli wrote:
>
> They were *not* uniformed police. It was four white guys, piling
>out of a car, guns drawn, at 12:30am, advancing on this guy standing
>on his *own* front porch. What would go through your mind?
>
> I find it very had to believe t
At 3:44 AM -0800 3/5/00, Petro wrote:
>>
>>And the four cops were of course not dressed as cops...they were part of
>>the "Street Crimes Unit," meaning they were supposed to blend in by looking
>>like street thugs.
>>
>>What Yabba.. thought was going down when four white guys started yelling at
>
>Sunder writes:
>> Any jurisdiction that considers pupming 41 pieces of lead in a man that
>> refuses to talk to four predatory bastards isn't by any stretch of the
>> immagination free.
>
>The number of bullets is not the issue. As has been discussed here
>before, any firefight involving multi
>
>And the four cops were of course not dressed as cops...they were part of
>the "Street Crimes Unit," meaning they were supposed to blend in by looking
>like street thugs.
>
>What Yabba.. thought was going down when four white guys started yelling at
>him will forever be unknown to us.
>
>I kno
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> >>> Police Officers wear a uniform to provide a _visible_ presence,
> >>> that very presence being a deterrant to the criminally minded
> >>> in society. Those 4 were in some other category and should not
> >>> have been doing flatfoot work.
>
>
>> > Wrong, police are here to serve and protect. They protect by enforcing
>> > laws. They serve by following the tenets of a democratic government as
>> > outlined in our Constitution.
>> No lesser than the Supreme Court says you are wrong. I don't have the
>> decision details on me, but the S
>>> Police Officers wear a uniform to provide a _visible_ presence, that very
>>> presence being a deterrant to the criminally minded in society. Those 4
>>> were in some other category and should not have been doing flatfoot work.
It hadn't been obvious from the press that they weren't uniform
Jim Burnes wrote:
>
> > Wrong, police are here to serve and protect. They protect by enforcing
> > laws. They serve by following the tenets of a democratic government as
> > outlined in our Constitution.
> >
>
> No lesser than the Supreme Court says you are wrong. I don't have the
> decision d
Jim Choate wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Jim Burnes wrote:
>
> > Jim Choate wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wrong. The police are here to enforce laws and arrest people. They have
> > > > no legal obligation to protect. It'd be nice if it really
Jim Choate wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Wrong. The police are here to enforce laws and arrest people. They have
> > no legal obligation to protect. It'd be nice if it really were that way,
> > but it isn't.
>
> Wrong, police are here to serve and protect. The
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Jim Burnes wrote:
> Jim Choate wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Wrong. The police are here to enforce laws and arrest people. They have
> > > no legal obligation to protect. It'd be nice if it really were that way,
> > > but it isn't.
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Wrong. The police are here to enforce laws and arrest people. They have
> no legal obligation to protect. It'd be nice if it really were that way,
> but it isn't.
Wrong, police are here to serve and protect. They protect by enforcing
laws. They
On 1 Mar 2000 06:26:12 -0600, Sunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Reese wrote:
>>
>
>> >Actually, there's no evidence that Yabbadabbadoo Diallo "refused to talk"
>> ^
>> Was that really necessary? Why not just "Diallo?"
>
>IMHO Tim seems to subc
Reese wrote:
>
> >Actually, there's no evidence that Yabbadabbadoo Diallo "refused to talk"
> ^
> Was that really necessary? Why not just "Diallo?"
IMHO Tim seems to subconsciously need to self-defeat his point. Or wants the
"PC" crowd to wail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> The number of bullets is not the issue. As has been discussed here
> before, any firefight involving multiple police officers is going
> to produce a lot of gunfire. Once that first bullet is fired, the
> decision is made to use lethal force. At
At 5:33 PM -0800 2/28/00, Reese wrote:
>At 10:51 AM 2/28/00 -0800, Tim May wrote:
>>Actually, there's no evidence that Yabbadabbadoo Diallo "refused to talk"
>^
>Was that really necessary?
Yes.
You ought to take your politically correct bullshit
On 28 Feb 2000, lcs Mixmaster Remailer wrote:
> The verdict in this trial was not by "our government", but by a jury of
> average Americans who were presented with all the evidence. The decision
> was unanimous, and the jury was racially mixed.
The evidence of which was presented by 'our gove
lcs Mixmaster Remailer wrote:
>
> Sunder writes:
>
> > > http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/diallo000225_verdict.html
> >
> > It just goes to further confirms my long suspicions that our government isn't
> > by the people/for the people at all, but rather has fascist/communist
> > tend
Sunder writes:
> > http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/diallo000225_verdict.html
>
> It just goes to further confirms my long suspicions that our government isn't
> by the people/for the people at all, but rather has fascist/communist
> tendencies.
The verdict in this trial was not by "
At 10:19 AM -0800 2/28/00, Sunder wrote:
>Peter Capelli wrote:
>>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> but it begs the question; what *would* a policeman have to do to get
>> convicted of murder?
>>
>> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/diallo000225_verdict.html
>
>I
At 07:14 PM 02/25/2000 -0500, Peter Capelli wrote:
>but it begs the question; what *would* a policeman have to do to get
>convicted of murder?
>
>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/diallo000225_verdict.html
Getting convicted by a US court's jury requires having a prosecutor convince
all
Peter Capelli wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> but it begs the question; what *would* a policeman have to do to get
> convicted of murder?
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/diallo000225_verdict.html
It just goes to further confirms my long suspicion
At 4:14 PM -0800 2/25/00, Peter Capelli wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>but it begs the question; what *would* a policeman have to do to get
>convicted of murder?
>
>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/diallo000225_verdict.html
>
The criminals in the inJustice D
24 matches
Mail list logo
