|
FreeinTX
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: December 23, 2007, 05:30:30 PM » |
|
Yes is does talk about a "continuation of government" in the event of a national emergency. You left out however: Definitions
(2) In this directive:
...
(c) "Continuity of Government," or "COG," means a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency;
Note that the continuity of government relates to the EXECUTIVE BRANCH. Are you claiming the President has no constitutional authority over the executive branch of the federal government? more... You read that and get that it only pertains to the executive branch? Yes it is done within the executive branch, but "to ensure that National Essential Functions" continue. According to PDD-51 what are the National Essential Functions, and do the Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch have ANY responsibilities pertaining to those functions? (e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;
The enduring what type of government again? Oh, yes, constitutional. Note also, the cooperative effort with the other branches, not taking over for them. So, because it says it is preserving the constitutional framework, that means it is? And where in this constitutional framework is the executive branch made responsible for PRESERVING the constitutional framework? Where is it the executive branches responsibility to PROVIDE orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of these National Essential Functions that you will be defining for me? Is it the executive branches job to do these things? Where is that mentioned in the ONSTITUTION? And... (9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government.
Where in the Constitution does it allow branches of the FEDERAL government to come up with continuity programs, and is it within the confines of the CONSTITUTION to coordinate with a "coop" and "CoG" policies on support of "ECG" efforts? Basically, this is the White house saying, in the event of a massive national emergency, this is our plan to continue, the other branches need to come up with their own. All within a constitutional framework.
Basically, what you are saying is a load of sh-t. The EXECUTIVE branch is NOT responsible for continuation of government. They are NOT authorized to plan contingencies that are EXTRA-Constitutional or post-Constitutional. The executive branch is NOT authroized to enforce the "implementation actions" listed in the directive. Things like; the overarching responsibilities of the Federal Government (not just the executive) to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis (the executive is NOT our leaders) sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of the Federal Government leadership (again not just the executive) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government (not the responsibility of the executive) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation's economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; (not the respionsibility of the Executive) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States. (NOT the responsibility of the executive) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. (NO, That's NOT how it works.) In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. (That's NOT even CONSTITUTIONAL) The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination. (NOPE, not Constitutional) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President's lead agent for coordinating overall continuity operations (NOT EVEN CLOSE) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government. (THE CONSTITUTION IS RESPONSIBLE NOT each branch of government) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency. (They each do their own thing then it is coordinated by the executive? YEA RIGHT) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
FreeinTX
|
|
« Reply #16 on: December 23, 2007, 05:35:50 PM » |
|
Basically, this is the White house saying, in the event of a massive national emergency, this is our plan to continue, the other branches need to come up with their own. All within a constitutional framework.
The President does NOT have the authority to "come up" with his own policies on the continuation of the Executive Branch. Neither does the Legislative Branch. And the Judicial branch has NO ability at all to do it. Then in Number 9 of this illegal document, it says they all come up with their own and the head of DHS coordinates it. You gotta be out of your mind, if you think this is in any way Constitutional. Just because it says it is, doesn't mean it is. The succession of power is very specific in the CONSTITUTION and the powers and authorities in the CONSTITUTION are for peace time, war time, and in the event of NATIONAL EMERGENCY. Are you suggesting that EVERY article listed under implementation is authorized by the Constitution of the United States as powers of the Executive Branch? Implementation Actions (4) Continuity requirements shall be incorporated into daily operations of all executive departments and agencies. As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received. Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions. Risk management principles shall be applied to ensure that appropriate operational readiness decisions are based on the probability of an attack or other incident and its consequences. (5) The following NEFs are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities and represent the overarching responsibilities of the Federal Government to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis, and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions: (a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government; (b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people; (c) Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests; (d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations; (e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests; (f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident; (g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation's economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and (h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States. (6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. [/color] In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination. (7) For continuity purposes, each executive department and agency is assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities in support of the Federal Government's ability to sustain the NEFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President's lead agent for coordinating overall continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies, and in such role shall perform the responsibilities set forth for the Secretary in sections 10 and 16 of this directive. (  The National Continuity Coordinator, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives, a concept of operations, performance metrics by which to measure continuity readiness, procedures for continuity and incident management activities, and clear direction to executive department and agency continuity coordinators, as well as guidance to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate. The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive. (9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government. (10) Federal Government COOP, COG, and ECG plans and operations shall be appropriately integrated with the emergency plans and capabilities of State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to promote interoperability and to prevent redundancies and conflicting lines of authority. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency. (18) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide secure, integrated, Continuity of Government communications to the President, the Vice President, and, at a minimum, Category I executive departments and agencies. Like I said, if you did a little checking on all the other programs I mentioned you might understand that just because a document CLAIMS it is protecting the Constitution, doesn't mean it is or that it is constitutional itself. The President nor the Executive Branch is responsible for the continuation of government. We have laws. There are laws in place for emergencies. The President can't just make his own rules. And by the way what is a National Essential Function? How is it specifically defined in this directive? Who determines which government functions are essential and which are NOT? And what the hell gives the President or the executive Branch the authority or power to define what a NEF is? And what makes the Executive branch responsible for ensuring the NEF's continue? And since when is the President in the "lead" of the activities of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? FreeinTX |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 23, 2007, 05:54:44 PM by FreeinTX »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
FreeinTX
|
|
« Reply #17 on: December 23, 2007, 06:00:40 PM » |
|
Okay more clearly stated;
Is the President or the Executive Branch responsible for;
a. Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;
Is that his job? Making sure the Congress and Supreme Court continue to function? Where is that stated in the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES?
FreeinTX
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
gomper7
Full Member
Karma: +28/-10
Posts: 238
|
|
« Reply #18 on: December 23, 2007, 06:25:09 PM » |
|
This document is essentially a directive to the heads of departments within the executive branch of our government on who they are to turn to and general guidelines to follow in the event of a governmentally debilitating national emergency.
And yes, the Constitution gives the president the authority to so direct these department heads, they report to him.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
FreeinTX
|
|
« Reply #19 on: December 24, 2007, 12:40:49 PM » |
|
This document is essentially a directive to the heads of departments within the executive branch of our government on who they are to turn to and general guidelines to follow in the event of a governmentally debilitating national emergency.
And yes, the Constitution gives the president the authority to so direct these department heads, they report to him.
You are NOT getting it. Can the President determine which government functions are "essential" and assume the responsibility to ensure the fuctioning of those "essential functions?" Where is that authority granted to the President, or ANY branch of government? If each Branch of government is to develop their own plan, how do you propose the Judicial Branch is supposed to design its program? Under what authority is that supposed to happen? The Constitution? Did you expect the 9 judges to sit around and come up with a security proceedure for extra-Consitutional "emergencies?" Where is it written that the Judicial Branch can or must deveop their own survival and continuation program? Where is it written that the President can "take the lead," at ANY time under ANY circumstance, EVER, WHATSOEVER? It states quite to the CONTRARY with the whole BALANCE OF POWER ideal, right? The three branches of government, coordinating with the executive branch, with the President at the lead. And this "emergency" government is to operate certain vaguely determined, "essential functions," many of which neither the federal government, nor executive branch, have any Constitutional authority to control any other branch or, "take the lead." And, don't forget, all of this done by this one man, signing this one order. No consent of the people, and being disclosed, even to Congress, only AFTER he signed it. No vote. No oversight. No authoirty granted to him under the Constitution. FreeinTX |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
gomper7
Full Member
Karma: +28/-10
Posts: 238
|
|
« Reply #20 on: December 25, 2007, 12:21:53 PM » |
|
This document is essentially a directive to the heads of departments within the executive branch of our government on who they are to turn to and general guidelines to follow in the event of a governmentally debilitating national emergency.
And yes, the Constitution gives the president the authority to so direct these department heads, they report to him.
You are NOT getting it. Can the President determine which government functions are "essential" and assume the responsibility to ensure the fuctioning of those "essential functions?" Where is that authority granted to the President, or ANY branch of government? Not only can he, it is his responsibility to insure the functioning of the executive branch of the government, and direct its cooperation with the other branches. If each Branch of government is to develop their own plan, how do you propose the Judicial Branch is supposed to design its program? Under what authority is that supposed to happen? The Constitution? Did you expect the 9 judges to sit around and come up with a security proceedure for extra-Consitutional "emergencies?" Where is it written that the Judicial Branch can or must deveop their own survival and continuation program? Where is it written that the President can "take the lead," at ANY time under ANY circumstance, EVER, WHATSOEVER? It states quite to the CONTRARY with the whole BALANCE OF POWER ideal, right?
Why do you keep throwing in "extra-constitutional"? The document never states such. In fact, it states explicitly that the idea is to continue running governmental operations under the constitution. This document has nothing to do with actions external to the constitution at all. Where does it say in the constitution that the president can take the lead? Article II, where it names him head or lead if you will, of the executive branch. So in what that body does, and how it interacts with the other bodies, the constitution specifically names him as leader. The three branches of government, coordinating with the executive branch, with the President at the lead. And this "emergency" government is to operate certain vaguely determined, "essential functions," many of which neither the federal government, nor executive branch, have any Constitutional authority to control any other branch or, "take the lead." And, don't forget, all of this done by this one man, signing this one order. No consent of the people, and being disclosed, even to Congress, only AFTER he signed it. No vote. No oversight. No authoirty granted to him under the Constitution.
FreeinTX
the president is granted explicit power to direct the executive branch in article II, that is what this document does. He was given the authority by the people to do so when they elected him. You want to believe that this document somehow creates a government outside of the constitution, because you want to see boogie men in dark corners. I am not saying the boogie men aren't necessarily there, but at least on what the scope of this document is and what it attempts to do, you are mistaken. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
trench2k
Newbie
Karma: +1/-2
Posts: 18
|
|
« Reply #21 on: December 28, 2007, 12:33:34 AM » |
|
It's the often common response to a situation. You ask the subject to calm down, and the civilian who feels so hyped up on their own Goddamn rights, that they can't respect the rights of anyone else. So they get tazed and it's the end of their world.
Keep in mind, there's no audio to this video so do we really have the whole story just from what's shown visually? No. Yes she was non-violent. But I've seen people literally scream at the top of their lungs, their "inherent" right to be able cause a commotion, and others be damned if they disagree. I've wanted violence against those people myself in the past. Unless the audio shows a different scenario, then this incident looks no different from the others I've witnessed. Hope it hurt.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Not the end, just the beginning of the end
|
|
|
Maxmillian
Full Member
Karma: +6/-5
Posts: 125
Voluminious words don't make one perspicacious.
|
|
« Reply #22 on: December 28, 2007, 02:38:46 AM » |
|
It's the often common response to a situation. You ask the subject to calm down, and the civilian who feels so hyped up on their own Goddamn rights, that they can't respect the rights of anyone else. So they get tazed and it's the end of their world.
Keep in mind, there's no audio to this video so do we really have the whole story just from what's shown visually? No. Yes she was non-violent. But I've seen people literally scream at the top of their lungs, their "inherent" right to be able cause a commotion, and others be damned if they disagree. I've wanted violence against those people myself in the past. Unless the audio shows a different scenario, then this incident looks no different from the others I've witnessed. Hope it hurt.
You realize free speech is meant to include speech found unpleasant, right? You do understand the whole "rights of the individual over comfort of the public" thing, don't you? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
FreeinTX
|
|
« Reply #23 on: December 28, 2007, 08:58:32 AM » |
|
It's the often common response to a situation. You ask the subject to calm down, and the civilian who feels so hyped up on their own Goddamn rights, that they can't respect the rights of anyone else. So they get tazed and it's the end of their world.
Keep in mind, there's no audio to this video so do we really have the whole story just from what's shown visually? No. Yes she was non-violent. But I've seen people literally scream at the top of their lungs, their "inherent" right to be able cause a commotion, and others be damned if they disagree. I've wanted violence against those people myself in the past. Unless the audio shows a different scenario, then this incident looks no different from the others I've witnessed. Hope it hurt.
You realize free speech is meant to include speech found unpleasant, right? You do understand the whole "rights of the individual over comfort of the public" thing, don't you? LOL OBVIOUSLY NOT!!! "The people are NOT allowed to get mad, or upset, or show ANY emotion when dealing with the police. If they do, then the taser is the ONLY way. Better safe than sorry." Right, trench2K? And does it even matter at all to you that she was NOT charged with anything violent which BY F-CK-N DEFINITION means she was NOT being violent or aggressive in any way? Who gives a sh-t about what was said? TWhat you say is NOT grounds to give you 50,000 volts a couple of times!!! The UN calls that TORTURE!!!!! I call it a violation of this INNOCENT WOMAN's RIGHTS, and because of the cops d-mb-ss-d solution to the situation, that cities TAX-PAYERS will be funding this woman's kids college education following a MASSIVE LAWSUIT to which she is entitled!!!! But you will probaboy use the MASSIVE VERDICT amount to justify your arguements for tort-reform, right? How about we FIRE the cop, the supervisor who defended the cops decision, and discuss which CHARGES can be filed AGAINST that officer to minimize the coming settlement offer that will be made to the VICTIM of this OFFICIAL OPPRESSION? FreeinTX |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Opmod
|
|
« Reply #24 on: December 28, 2007, 09:16:33 AM » |
|
I'd like to know how one can be calm when they just got an upsetting phone call about their child?
if it was that important whyd she go back in the store? This story reeks like month old dead horse. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\"Something witty\\\" Some self impotant blowhard
|
|
|
|
FreeinTX
|
|
« Reply #25 on: December 28, 2007, 09:33:08 AM » |
|
This document is essentially a directive to the heads of departments within the executive branch of our government on who they are to turn to and general guidelines to follow in the event of a governmentally debilitating national emergency.
And yes, the Constitution gives the president the authority to so direct these department heads, they report to him.
You are NOT getting it. Can the President determine which government functions are "essential" and assume the responsibility to ensure the fuctioning of those "essential functions?" Where is that authority granted to the President, or ANY branch of government? Not only can he, it is his responsibility to insure the functioning of the executive branch of the government, and direct its cooperation with the other branches. Where in the CONSTITUTION does it say that? And how is the Judicial Branch supposed to come up with a way to insure it's functioning? Is that their job? The individual branches are NOT supposed to come up with plans to ensure they continue to function. They are NOT ABLE TO!!! The 9 judges can't be expected to implement a survivability plan. They don't even have the resources to understand that, much less accomplish that. So if the Judicial Branch can't do that, how does it make sense to even say that the three branches must cooperate with each other. And, can the President take the lead? It says "the President shall LEAD the activities of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT." an he do that? Answer me that question? Where does he dervie that authority? To take the lead of the federal government. If each Branch of government is to develop their own plan, how do you propose the Judicial Branch is supposed to design its program? Under what authority is that supposed to happen? The Constitution? Did you expect the 9 judges to sit around and come up with a security proceedure for extra-Consitutional "emergencies?" Where is it written that the Judicial Branch can or must deveop their own survival and continuation program? Where is it written that the President can "take the lead," at ANY time under ANY circumstance, EVER, WHATSOEVER? It states quite to the CONTRARY with the whole BALANCE OF POWER ideal, right?
Why do you keep throwing in "extra-constitutional"? The document never states such. In fact, it states explicitly that the idea is to continue running governmental operations under the constitution. This document has nothing to do with actions external to the constitution at all. Where does it say in the constitution that the president can take the lead? Article II, where it names him head or lead if you will, of the executive branch. So in what that body does, and how it interacts with the other bodies, the constitution specifically names him as leader. NOT takes the lead of the Executive Branch. It does NOT say that. It says TAKES THE LEAD OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES!!! (6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. I keep getting EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONAL because the President is NOT allowed to assign each branch of government, any duties, or tasks, or plans, or roles, or ANY SUCH THING!!! You are saying that under this POLICY, the 3 braches of government must come up with their own plans for survivability, called CoG, and coordinate with the Executive Branch where the President TAKES THE LEAD IN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES. All of that is B-LLSH-T and NONE of it is listed as allowed in the CONSTITUTION. The President has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to mandate these things or make this policy. It is NOT authorized in the CONSTITUTION, what Bush called a "GOD D-MN PIECE OF PAPER!," and since PDD-51 grants the Executive Branch authorities and powers above and beyond the CONSTITUTION in the event the President, HIMSELF, determines to be a "national emergency" it is the very DEFINITION of EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONAL, AND POST-CONSTITUTIONAL. Did you expect an extra-cponstitutional document to tell you it is an extra-constitutional document? State it right there on the document, ehh? An act of TREASON, in plain English? I sure hope your NOT or ever want to be a lawyer. The three branches of government, coordinating with the executive branch, with the President at the lead. And this "emergency" government is to operate certain vaguely determined, "essential functions," many of which neither the federal government, nor executive branch, have any Constitutional authority to control any other branch or, "take the lead." And, don't forget, all of this done by this one man, signing this one order. No consent of the people, and being disclosed, even to Congress, only AFTER he signed it. No vote. No oversight. No authoirty granted to him under the Constitution.
FreeinTX
the president is granted explicit power to direct the executive branch in article II, that is what this document does. He was given the authority by the people to do so when they elected him. You want to believe that this document somehow creates a government outside of the constitution, because you want to see boogie men in dark corners. I am not saying the boogie men aren't necessarily there, but at least on what the scope of this document is and what it attempts to do, you are mistaken. No I think that because I can read F-CK-N english and do NOT try and twist it into someting it is NOT. When it says "The President shall TAKE THE LEAD in the activities of the federal gobvernment." I believe that the President intends to TAKE THE LEAD of the activities of the FEDERAL government. When it says, the EXECUTIVE BRANCH is responsible to, "Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;" I think the executive branch is trying to take responsibility to ensure the functioning of our form of government. Which it is NOT!!!!! When it says, the executive branch is responsible for "Protecting and stabilizing the Nation's economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems," I think the President is trying to circumvent CONGRESS and their LAWS about our nations economy and public confidence in the financial systems, as well as, grab control over the FREE MARKET forces of capitalism. When it says that the executive Branch is responsible for "Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States," I think that the President wishes to over-look the fact that he is NOT responsible for these things. Congress is, our LAWS are, and the state governments are. When it says that, "the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency," I believe that the President wants to forget that FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP is NOT the Executive Branch and the Predident nor the Executive Branch can determine "NEF's" and what is or what is NOT essential for the people. And the idea, that the other three branches have to do anything the President says , is simply rediculous. The idea that the 9 judges must make CoG plans and coordinate with the Executive Branch and the Department of Homeland Security is DUMB, and is NOT what this document is about. This document is about the Executive Branch forming its own processes of handling emergencies and requiring the other branches of government as well as the governments of the states, to hand over authorizations and powers that EXCLUSIVELY belong to them. Where is the CONSTITUTION does it say the President can do any of this? PLEASE FEEL FREE TO QUOTE THAT PART OF THE CONSTITUTION!!! FreeinTX |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
trench2k
Newbie
Karma: +1/-2
Posts: 18
|
|
« Reply #26 on: December 29, 2007, 02:21:23 AM » |
|
It's the often common response to a situation. You ask the subject to calm down, and the civilian who feels so hyped up on their own Goddamn rights, that they can't respect the rights of anyone else. So they get tazed and it's the end of their world.
Keep in mind, there's no audio to this video so do we really have the whole story just from what's shown visually? No. Yes she was non-violent. But I've seen people literally scream at the top of their lungs, their "inherent" right to be able cause a commotion, and others be damned if they disagree. I've wanted violence against those people myself in the past. Unless the audio shows a different scenario, then this incident looks no different from the others I've witnessed. Hope it hurt.
You realize free speech is meant to include speech found unpleasant, right? You do understand the whole "rights of the individual over comfort of the public" thing, don't you? LOL OBVIOUSLY NOT!!! "The people are NOT allowed to get mad, or upset, or show ANY emotion when dealing with the police. If they do, then the taser is the ONLY way. Better safe than sorry." Right, trench2K? And does it even matter at all to you that she was NOT charged with anything violent which BY F-CK-N DEFINITION means she was NOT being violent or aggressive in any way? Who gives a sh-t about what was said? TWhat you say is NOT grounds to give you 50,000 volts a couple of times!!! The UN calls that TORTURE!!!!! I call it a violation of this INNOCENT WOMAN's RIGHTS, and because of the cops d-mb-ss-d solution to the situation, that cities TAX-PAYERS will be funding this woman's kids college education following a MASSIVE LAWSUIT to which she is entitled!!!! But you will probaboy use the MASSIVE VERDICT amount to justify your arguements for tort-reform, right? How about we FIRE the cop, the supervisor who defended the cops decision, and discuss which CHARGES can be filed AGAINST that officer to minimize the coming settlement offer that will be made to the VICTIM of this OFFICIAL OPPRESSION? FreeinTX The UN!??! Rightttttt, so they're the branch you turn to define what torture should be. If that's where you're basing your logic then you've already got it wrong. Do you even realize that this would mean every tool used by police officers, from pepper spray to batons, would fit under the U.N.'s criteria for torture because they cause "extreme pain." A United Nations committee recently found that that use of Taser weapons can be a form of torture, in violation of the U.N. Convention Against Torture. Since officers would not be working in the capacity that they do without the ability to defend themselves from the more violent elements of society, we can't really take their definition of torture too seriously. It overreaches and in doing so collapses on itself. In your own esteemed words, What the FUCK should they be carrying with them in their place. You say the UN constitutes them as torture, but offer no other alternative to their use. It's no wonder why corruption flourishes when there's more rights being dealt to those on the other side of the law. And onto this case, just because you're not being overtly physically aggressive, doesn't mean you're in any way in the right either. I guarantee that by the point where the officer used the taser, the store manager was telling the lady to leave the store. So if she stays naturally it's trespassing, minor maybe but still a criminal act, plain and simple. Do you seriously want to argue that point? Grab a law book if your answer is anything but no. So she disagreed, as evidenced by the fact that she remained. And she was tazed. Was it justified? I don't think it was. But the fact is, she caused enough of a commotion that it came to the point where she needed to be forced out through physical promptness by the officer. Hell, she even stayed long enough to argue about the situation that the cop had the time to show up and become involved. I've seen bad customers before, they're not righteous people much as they and their advocates like to believe. I've seen video where even the most benign situation can turn on an officer in this type of situation, not always to their advantage despite their training. The lady brought the situation up to the point where nonlethal force was justified if not necessarily the wisest choice. She can only blame herself in the end for the resulting actions. If she'd simply walked outside, what would have happened to her? The answer, Nothing! |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 29, 2007, 02:27:23 AM by trench2k »
|
Logged
|
Not the end, just the beginning of the end
|
|
|
|
