For the "Cop Hater" fan bois...
Educate yourselves!
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (35)
sorted by:
That "serve and protect" nonsense generated by California liberals. That was nothing more than a radio contest by the Los Angeles Police Department in the 1950's for a slogan for them. It is nothing more than a LIBERAL attempt to try to exert control over law enforcement. It's bull shyt. Go ahead and google it.
Law enforcement officers LOVE the body/dash cams because they are the most prominent factor is thousands of law enforcement officers being found innocent and exonerated regarding thousands of complaints that would have otherwise been upheld just to appease the masses. The officers now have all the proof they need to show that the majority of complaints are LIES.
Again, you are proliferating a LIE. The truth is that the majority in law enforcement ARE Oath Keepers and "cop haters" like you can never provide any reliable source for the case being otherwise. So PROVE it! I'll wait.
No one has ever denied you your right to "freely travel". You're free to take the shoe leather express anywhere you want, even across state lines or country borders.
Where your argument fails is your contention that operating a motor vehicle on a taxpayer funded street or highway is a "right". IT IS NOT. It is a privilege and if you want to exercise that PRIVILEGE then you have to meet the requirements.
Of course, if you don't like the way that this nation is operated, then you are quite free to shoe leather express your ass to a country that is more to your liking. Good luck with that,...sovereign citizen wannabe.
My freedoms are not to be infringed and are never to be given through obligation. Freedom of travel. If I am not employed through interstate commerce I am not obligated and cannot be to hold a license or insurance. That is really all that needs to be said about it, I think. Municipalities are using police to enforce unconstitutional laws.
Asset forfeiture is another, as I am free to own property and it cannot simply be taken because. Again, municipalities using police to enforce unconstitutional law.
That is called treason, pretty sure. I do not hate cops, I hate what they do without knowing.
code and statute enforcement would also fall under enforcing unconstitutional law, because it isn't law.
What in the world does ANY of this have to do with "Qualified Immunity"?
Why yes, we ARE aware of your Liberal Left Wing(nut) Arguing Checklist tactics.
You failingly tried to utilize #4 because you couldn't refute the original topic of qualified immunity.
Get back on topic. Or are you going to simply resort to something else on the ole Liberal Left Wing(nut) Arguing Checklist?
Actually you failed to answer my question about qualified immunity. Why are citizens not allowed that luxury? Classifying law enforcement as citizens doesn't answer the question. It is not afforded to the average citizen, you must join the club to get it, you see what I mean? They are civil servants, I cannot fathom why they would require more protection than the citizens they don't have to protect.
And seeing the State of the Republic lends to the notion that they are seriously not doing as they should be.
It certainly does. Qualified immunity applies to ALL GOVERNMENT/PUBLIC OFFICIALS. Not just law enforcement. It applies to judges, Clerk of Court secretaries, federal, state, county, and city attorneys and their staff, city garbage collectors, city and county fire, building and other inspectors, ANYBODY who works for a governmental entity. Are they all not citizens? Do you even think?
Which clearly shows why you would never have ever been considered for a position on the Supreme Court. You simply don't get to place law enforcement officers in a "Damned if you do AND damned if you don't." situation. And it's not more protection, it's sufficiently minimum appropriate protection.
AGAIN: “A policeman’s lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he has probable cause, and being mulcted in damages if he does,” ~ Chief Justice Earl Warren
What a neat list!
I do not recall changing the narrative one bit, I suggested changes in the structure based off the information that you provided me and information that I provided you. Do let me know if I check another box without knowing, I can be quite absent minded.
I think that you are guilty of number 4 and 5 right now, maybe 2
ummm... ism!!!
Am i doing it right?
Why no, you are not. But then I suspect that's a result of your common core liberal educa,... errr,....indoctrination.
And we are all still waiting for your proof of all those arrests for not wearing masks that YOU state exist. I, and all the other readers, have noticed that you seem to be avoiding producing the proof to support your assertion. Or, are you ready to admit that such arrests for not wearing a mask DON'T EXIST?