The wannabe dictator cites the state law 870.044 almost verbatim, but leaves out the important part:
870.044 Automatic emergency measures.—Whenever the public official declares that a state of emergency exists, pursuant to s. 870.043, the following acts shall be prohibited during the period of said emergency throughout the jurisdiction:
(1) The sale of, or offer to sell, with or without consideration, any ammunition or gun or other firearm of any size or description.
(2) The intentional display, after the emergency is declared, by or in any store or shop of any ammunition or gun or other firearm of any size or description.
(3) The intentional possession in a public place of a firearm by any person, except a duly authorized law enforcement official or person in military service acting in the official performance of her or his duty.
Note that the pertinent part was left out- the state of emergency has to be declared pursuant to 870.043. What does that particular law have to say on the subject? State statute 870.043 reads:
870.043 Declaration of emergency.—Whenever the sheriff or designated city official determines that there has been an act of violence or a flagrant and substantial defiance of, or resistance to, a lawful exercise of public authority and that, on account thereof, there is reason to believe that there exists a clear and present danger of a riot or other general public disorder, widespread disobedience of the law, and substantial injury to persons or to property, all of which constitute an imminent threat to public peace or order and to the general welfare of the jurisdiction affected or a part or parts thereof, he or she may declare that a state of emergency exists within that jurisdiction or any part or parts thereof.
The state of emergency in Florida wasn’t due to an act of violence or a flagrant and substantial defiance of, or resistance to, a lawful exercise of public authority. It was due to an approaching hurricane. Therefore, the entire declaration of this tyrant was unlawful.
This is what tyrants do- they twist the law to suit their own purposes.
Peter and Aesop both ask the same question: Should the government ‘let’ people build a house in an area known to be prone to disasters like hurricanes? The reasons that they give:
it costs local and state authorities huge amounts to maintain access to such areas to protect them, fire and rescue departments to aid those living there during disasters, etc.;
Insurance companies typically won’t insure against hazards that are so easily foreseen, meaning that either they have to be compelled to do so through legislation, and/or subsidized to do so from taxpayers’ coffers, and/or have state-aided insurance plans such as flood insurance to cover the risks they will not.
There’s all the infrastructure (roads, power, water, sewage processing and disposal, maintenance, etc.). That’s not just capital cost to provide them all, but ongoing running costs year in, year out.
There’s the expense of subsidizing and/or providing insurance coverage.
There’s the burden of restoring services to such areas when natural disasters disrupt them (which also means the resources devoted to doing that can’t be used in other areas where they may be needed, imposing additional delays and costs).
There’s the additional bureaucracy and complexity of legislation and/or regulation accompanying all of the above.
These positions seem reasonable. They are also tyrannical and wrong. If we were to grant government the power to declare that you can’t live somewhere because it is too expensive to provide services there, then you open the door to government getting involved and ruling over your entire life.
Owning guns is too dangerous, and therefore illegal. So is smoking, drinking alcohol, eating salt, eating fatty foods, and not exercising 1 hour per day. SCUBA and sky diving, contact sports, owning a car that is capable of speeds more than 40 miles per hour, as well as roller skates, bicycles, and air conditioning (Climate Change!) are all dangerous.
Governments were created, among other things, to provide for the common defense. Services like fire, police, and rescue are properly part of that response. Don’t tell me how we should have for profit fire and rescue services- we tried that, and it plain doesn’t work. (Seriously- read the link before you comment)
Water, power, roads, and all of those other services are paid for by companies that have been granted a monopoly by the government. They aren’t paid for by taxes in many cases, but by fees passed on to consumers.
Back to the subject- when the government decides that it’s most cost effective to make everyone live in tenements in downtown Detroit, come back and explain to me how you didn’t see that coming. But hey, you can sign on to the Green New Deal if you prefer.
I keep seeing those on the left demanding that we provide proof that illegal aliens are voting in large enough numbers to affect the outcomes of an election. So with that, I provide more evidence that illegals are voting.
So again, why can’t that same logic be used as an excuse to own artillery pieces, kill people that you don’t like, or use LSD while driving down the highway, if that is what makes you happy?
It is my opinion that judges walk into the court room with a preconceived idea as to how they want to decide the case, and then twist the law and the constitution to fit that view.
National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter ordered Starbucks to reopen “within a reasonable period of time” two Ithaca locations that closed
Parks, athletic facilities and similar areas. Gun bans there are likely constitutional.
Playgrounds and youth centers. Gun bans there are likely constitutional.
Bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. Gun bans there are likely constitutional.
Places of amusement, including casinos, stadiums, amusement parks, zoos, museums and libraries. Gun bans there are likely constitutional.
Parking areas connected to certain sensitive places. Gun bans there are likely constitutional.
The private-property default rule. Hawaii’s rule banning guns on private property unless the owner gives consent orally, in writing or on a sign is likely constitutional.
Places of worship. State-mandated gun bans there are likely unconstitutional, but nothing prevents the owner or operator from banning firearms.
Gatherings that require a permit. Gun bans there are likely unconstitutional.
Financial institutions. State-mandated gun bans there are likely unconstitutional, but nothing prevents the owner or operator from banning firearms.
Hospitals and other medical facilities. State-mandated gun bans there are likely unconstitutional, but nothing prevents the owner or operator from banning firearms.
Public transit. A broad ban on carrying guns on public transit is likely unconstitutional, but a narrower law allowing the carrying of unloaded and secured firearms would likely be constitutional.
It’s a Mish mash. It isn’t even consistent. Where in the Constitution is this even found? Where in the history and tradition of the country was there a ban on weapons in bard? Casinos? But not hospitals, churches, or banks?
If you argue that schools are sensitive places and rights can be suspended to protect children, then why not suspend the First Amendment there and disallow faggotry?
Our courts are just as partisan and divided as the citizens. It’s long past time to admit that this nation is too large and varied for one set of rules to work for everyone.
“If I wasn’t Tyreek Hill, Lord knows, I probably would have been, like, worst-case scenario, I would have been shot or would have been locked up” and “put behind bars, you know, for a simple speeding ticket,” Hill told NBC News.
It wasn’t just a simple speeding ticket. Police claim that he was going more than double speed limit in an area where pedestrians were walking to see the game he was about to play in. That’s reckless driving, which is a crime, not a traffic infraction.
Then they go on to blame racism and state that Hill’s lawyers are going to sue.
It’s hard,” Hill said. “I don’t want to bring race into it, but sometimes it gets kind of iffy when you do. What if I wasn’t Tyreek Hill? Lord knows what those guys would have done. I just wanted to make sure I was doing what my uncle always told me to do whenever you’re in a situation like that — put your hands on the steering wheel and just listen.”
Were the cops out of line? Let’s take a look at the body cam.
The first thing that I noticed is that the cops aren’t white. There goes the racism charge. We all know that in today’s environment, you can’t be racist unless you are white.
The second thing you see is that the first words out of Hill’s mouth are “Don’t knock on my window like that,” which is setting the stage for how you will be treated. He says something else, followed by “Do what you gotta do,” then rolls his window back up. His windows are tinted far darker than Florida law allows, and it is impossible to see into the car. That is a sure recipe for a cop to demand your windows be rolled down, and that is exactly what happened.
When the cop again knocks on the window, Hill gives more attitude, so he is told to get out of the car. Hill doesn’t comply, so the cops threaten to break the window. As the cops are pulling him out of the car, Hill is busy calling his agent or perhaps the teams security chief ( both are named Drew) for help on the phone.
As they finish cuffing him, several of his teammates show up and begin interfering with the traffic stop. One of them eventually gets cuffed as well.
“Tyreek was in handcuffs for like 20 minutes, probably more. Team security came and was able to squash everything. Other officers pulled up — I think some superior officers pulled up. And everything worked out. But it was a crazy situation. It was not necessary.”
Note that the USA today article spends a good bit of time detailing the football accomplishments of the people involved in the incident: NFL man of the year, Heisman this, statistics on the football field that. Also there was Hill’s agent and the director of team security. Any bets on whether or not the director of team security is a former cop, and that’s why Hill was let go with only a ticket? The team had this to say:
It is both maddening and heartbreaking to watch the very people we trust to protect our community use such unnecessary force and hostility towards these players, yet it is also a reminder that not every situation like this ends in peace, as we are grateful this one did,” they said in part. “‘What if I wasn’t Tyreek Hill?’ is a question that will carry with resounding impact.
The Dolphins also called on the Miami-Dade Police Department to take “swift and strong action against the officers who engaged in such despicable behavior.”
What if he wasn’t Tyreek Hill? Well, he would not have gotten out of driving nearly 100 mph on a surface street without a valid driver’s license, that’s for sure. The left keeps lecturing us on how “no one is above the law,” but that isn’t true, and everyone knows it. Although he was cited for speeding, reckless driving, and driving without a valid license, there are currently no pending traffic tickets in Miami-Dade’s system for him. They have been magically erased.
The cop is on a paid suspension pending an investigation.
My opinion on what caused this incident to escalate of control?
This isn’t a race issue. It’s an issue of entitlement. He’s good at playing a child’s game, and for that reason he has never had to follow the rules. Schools don’t discipline them as children, because they are good at sports. The same happens as adults. They are the puppy from Starship Troopers- never disciplined, then everyone is surprised when they turn out to be criminals with no respect for the law or the rules. You know what? They are right- being good at playing with a ball means being too rich and famous to follow the same laws that the rest of us must follow.
There is no winning here. Let’s say you see a cop doing this to your wife. It doesn’t matter if he is right or wrong, overpowering this cop, holding him at gunpoint, or shooting him will result in your death, no matter how unlawful his actions were.
The saddest part is that her kids were acting like their mother was in the wrong.
