For months, we have been seeing stories about Britney Griner, the Woman’s Basketball player who protested the US, taking a knee and complaining about the US and its supposed unfairness to women. She get caught smuggling weed into Russia and was sentenced to prison. The penal colony she was sent to was supposedly inhumane torture.
You can bet your ass that Griner will still run her mouth about how unfair the US is, even though she has both seen how other countries do business and had the US free a terrorist to get her out.
This country now has one of the most evil governments on the planet. Perhaps that’s been the case for decades, and now they just aren’t bothering to hide it any longer.
This encounter is why you don’t answer a cop’s questions. Hand over the license and registration, and then respond with “I am not trying to be disrespectful, but I don’t wish to answer any questions at this time,” and then shut up. If you get officer road rage, it likely won’t help, but at least you have a stronger case later.
A member of the 21st Waitress Division (Airborne) threatened to have a disabled man pulled from a plane at gunpoint. His crime? Asking the stewardess to follow the law and make sure his wheelchair was on the Jetway, so he could use it to leave the plane.
What’s next for her? Punch a baby for crying and interrupting her during her seatbelt speech? Kick the crutches out from under a disabled child for taking too long to find a seat?
This is what happens when you give people a little power. They become little petty tyrants. When I was in the military, we used to joke around and say “What is the military gonna do? Take away my birthday? Confiscate my name?” I think that is exactly what we should do. Tell them that they are no longer “flight attendants.” You are now “Stewards” and “Stewardesses.” Keep screwing up, and we will start calling you “waitress” and you can work for tips.
Or we can just tell them that the days of threatening to have people arrested for “not complying with the instructions of a flight crew” are over, because they are now subject to being sued personally for violating the law and people’s civil rights under color of authority.
“Not only safe from active shooters, intruders, and other potential threats to our campuses, but also from the clowns who continually disrupt our classrooms and our assemblies with bad behavior, violent acts, and even cellphones, that disrupt class room environments and distract our incredible teachers.”
Look, I am in agreement that there are some kids in school that are out of control. I just don’t like that there are no details of this new policy, and I definitely don’t think that the police are the proper tool for addressing those children. If he is talking about children who are committing big boy crimes, that is one thing, but referring to using police to control a kid who is only disrupting class is another. Read this quote and see what I mean:
“If you are a teacher that is passionate about teaching children and are sick and tired of trying to do it in an environment where you are physically and verbally threatened or subjected to constant childish outbursts, then starting today, your prayers have been answered, because all of us have had enough of this crap as well.
(emphasis added by DM)
In school, childish outbursts are expected. They are CHILDREN, after all. The teachers need to worry about those things, not police. I’m with the Sheriff on things like violence, stealing, and actual crimes. Not on kids simply being kids.
A deputy in Columbia County, FL stops a blind man for having a folding cane in his back pocket, claiming that she thought it was a firearm. EDITED TO ADD: It’s obvious that the deputy didn’t REALLY believe that the folded walking stick in his back pocket was a firearm, judging by her demeanor when he reached back and pulled it from his pocket. She invented the firearm story because she wanted an excuse to stop and harass him. I believe that she stopped him because she had already decided to harass him and find a reason to arrest him. END EDIT
It is quickly established that her reasonable, articulable suspicion was incorrect. At this point, her legal justification for the stop is over. There is no RAS that a crime was being committed, therefore there is no reason to detain this man. Instead, she then demands that he produce identification and he refuses because he apparently understands the law better than this cop and her sergeant.
After they run his ID, the female deputy asks “Was that so hard?” The man replies, “It’s gonna be. I want your names and badge numbers,” to which the sergeant replies, “You know what, put him in jail for resisting.”
Resisting what? There was no legal reason to put him in handcuffs or demand his ID.
This is the kind of shit that makes me dislike police. The deputies know the charges will be dropped but are using the process to punish people because they know that they will inconvenience you, costing you legal fees, and retaliate by putting you into the system. We should change the law to establish citizen review committees that review police actions and give these committees the power to strip individual officers of their qualified immunity so that they can be personally held accountable when deliberately using the law as a weapon to satisfy personal vendettas.
If the government pays a burglar to break into your house to see what you have, then the police use that evidence to arrest you, they have just violated your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
If the government pays a private contractor to burn down your church, or throw you in prison, or even prevent you from publishing books, your rights have been violated. It doesn’t matter if a business did it, especially if they did it at the behest of the government. If the government and businesses work together to deprive their citizens of rights, that is fascism. In fact, that is EXACTLY what Mussolini did.
This is a clear violation of the First Amendment, and was even used as an example during oral arguments in the Heller case. It was Chief Justice Roberts who asked “Would it be constitutionally acceptable for a municipality to ban books as long as newspapers—a viable substitute source of expression—were still legal?” The answer is no, of course.