Is ‘Stop And Frisk’ Coming To Your Neighborhood?

0 Shares
patdown0906_image

The contentious police-state tactic of officers stopping random pedestrians for warrantless pat downs is no longer a concern just for residents of New York City. The practice, it seems, is spreading to police departments throughout the Nation.

The Northwest Indiana Times recently reported that police in the area have assembled a “Region STOP Team” headed by Mark Becker, chief of police in East Chicago, Ind. Becker and his team of between 12 and 18 officers patrol various local areas looking for “anything outside the norm” to use as justification to invade residents’ privacy.

“With the new Region STOP Team, no bust — or suspicious glance — is too small. Because you never know what crime you could be preventing or what wanted person you might find,” the news report says.

One of the officers described the process as being “sort of like fishing” for criminals.

Below is a local newscast detailing a day in the life of a “Region STOP Team” member. The patrols appear to consist mainly of hassling people who have committed petty crimes or who simply seem to be attempting to avoid being harassed by cops:

Have you noticed stop and frisk tactics being used in your locale? If so, explain in the comments below or send us a news tip.

Sam Rolley

Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After covering community news and politics, Rolley took a position at Personal Liberty Media Group where could better hone his focus on his true passions: national politics and liberty issues. In his daily columns and reports, Rolley works to help readers understand which lies are perpetuated by the mainstream media and to stay on top of issues ignored by more conventional media outlets.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • jdn

    The freedom hating Commies have not made it here , yet . I am afraid that it will take determination and blood to slow them down . They are never stopped and have always been with us throughout history and always will be .

  • Alan

    Who determines what is or isn’t the ” norm “, each individual cop, or is there some guideline ? This seems to be a very a very dangerous challenge to personal freedoms.

  • bygeorge

    I had 43 years in law enforcement. The “Terry Search” ruling is the only legal exception to the protections of the 4th amendment that I know of. Basically, the police who searched Terry, already knew him to be an unrepentant criminal, not a stranger. Their search of Terry, was under suspicious circumstances, i.e.: at night in an area of frequent crimes.

    The SCOTUS said the police could, for their safety, search for weapons of known criminals under those circumstances. The search however, was limited to a pat down and did not extend to going into his pockets, which they didn’t, until after his arrest. The pat down produced a weapon and Terry’s arrest as an armed criminal, was justified as good police procedure. What’s going on now is arbitrary and not constitutional.

    • paendragon

      “Random” checks are by definition exactly opposed to “Probable” cause!

  • WesTexan

    “If you’ve got nothing to hide, what difference does it make?”

    This is the attitude of a person who has little or no understanding of what it means to live in a free Constitutional Republic. Sure, if you’ve done nothing wrong, go ahead and surrender your Constitutional rights, and every time you do, you give the lawless government another inch toward losing all rights.

    Amendment IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    The first eleven words of the Fourth Amendment make “stop and frisk” illegal. It’s against the law. It requires, by law, a warrant, which in turn requires “probable cause.” If you give the government that inch, they won’t take a mile, they’ll eventually take it all because they know most American will passively, like sheep to the slaughter, lay down and take it.

    Maybe cowards deserve no rights.

    • paendragon

      Such idolatrous cretins don’t understand that “group” rights (even government ones) deprive all real individual human citizens of their rights, because they have LESS rights; they also don’t seem to understand that all groups (including that “government” one they worship) is only the humans that comprise it; and that those humans can easily be criminals, too! They ignore that stalking and harrassment are always crimes, even when their precious “government” gang does it to them.

  • rbrooks

    it is amusing that so many blame obama, or politicians in general, for this action. we the people have allowed this. personal liberty illustrious writer, chip wood, wrote a story defending this action.

    when you allowed any american to be deprived, exempted, from any constitutional right;

    you effectively & affectively gave up your rights.

    • paendragon

      WRONG. Politicians deliberately MAKE all the ever-“new, progressive” laws which cause the slippery slope away from the Golden Rule of Law (basically, “Do Not Attack First”) to their own brazen rule of chaos: “Always Attack First – Just In Case!” Sure, they may just do it to seem to be doing *something* to earn their paychecks, but they don’t have to.

      • rbrooks

        you live in denial. those politicians never got there with out you, and all of the rest of us, letting them.

        it most cases, the public supported the very constitutional & bill of right restrictions we currently have.

        how many do you support?

        • paendragon

          The Constitution doesn’t say: “Congress shall make no laws which “pre-emptively, defensively” attack the Citizens as Guilty Until Never Proven Innocent first.” Kinda needs a statement like that, IMHO. Then the judges could vet all the laws and say “Sorry, Pals! No can do for that one!”

          • rbrooks

            actually we do have a right to be free of this type of search, seizure, held without bail or hearing.

            thanks to the patriot act, and laws like the terry laws, exemptions to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th., etc, we no longer have any rights.

            where was the public out rage when all of these rights were being removed?

            the public elected the crooks and then allowed them to pass these laws.

            we are all to blame.

          • paendragon

            NO, we’re not! The courts are supposed to look at laws contrary to the Constitution and declare them invalid if not outright illegal – but they rarely if ever do so, which shows them to be criminals, themselves. I’m all for activist judges if it means they are empowered to initiate cases themselves to block bad and illegal, anti-Constitutional “laws.” That’s the sort of judges even the French have!

          • rbrooks

            you do realise that most judges are elected.

          • paendragon

            Not where I come from, they aren’t. Prolly a good thing.

          • rbrooks

            what state? there are very few left that still appoint judges.

          • paendragon

            That gigantic, frozen, Northernmost state; aka: “Canada.”

          • rbrooks

            wouldn’t have much to do with our constitution or bill of rights. you guys have your own set of problems. tho you do seem to be in better shape than we are. at the moment.

          • paendragon

            Au contraire, when America sneezes, Canada catches a cold – and it seems to me you guys are very sick right now! Besides, your Constitution actually makes sense; ours is all “Peace, Order, Good Government and God Save the Queen!” rah rah makes no sense at all, (socialism) really.
            You seem to have rights; we only have responsibilities.

          • rbrooks

            well, with rights comes responsibility.

            i would say canada is sneezing at the moment.

          • paendragon

            Would it help if we burnt down the White House – again?
            I promise we’d make sure Zero and Mooch were inside!

            ;-)

          • rbrooks

            it is congress that is the problem. as long as all of congress is in session at that time.

            i doubt you can get little bush and dickless to return.

          • paendragon

            To paraphrase a famous quote: “All it takes for Obama to triumph, is for Congress to do nothing.”

            ;-)

          • rbrooks

            a lame duck congress favors no one and nothing is going to get done.

            it is the same rhetoric that was used when little bush was in office.

            nothing has changed.

            perhaps the next election will tip the balance in congress.

          • paendragon

            When Shrub was in office, Congress was Republican and did what he told them. Now they’re still Republicans, and still do what they’re told – but by the Demoncrat antiChrist.

          • rbrooks

            at least you seem to realise that all politicians are crooks. we will have to change the way we select those whom we elect before there will ever be a change.

          • paendragon

            Of course they are – here’s how and why, and what we can do about it:

            It’s the idolatrous political “party” system itself which permits our otherwise public SERVANTS to indulge them selves in interest-conflicted divided loyalties, and so slip from the tethers we should be keeping them on.

            Unless we eliminate political parties, the salesmen in government will destroy the country.

            Politicians don’t represent the people – they only represent their parties. And their parties only represent those who pay them – who happen to be the exact same people for each party.

            So ALL politicians are only treasonous sales-puppets, foisted on us by their corporazi sales-masters. Their real job is to sell us all out by selling off our country to the highest bidders – usually by buying our enemies’ money to fund their own pet projects. The faster the turnover (more sales per minute) the more quick profits, even at low-low fire-sales prices. It’s a race to the bottom.

            So, let’s just FIX DEMOCRACY!

            And here’s how: If we just hold 2 quick, back-to-back elections each time (the first, as usual, to hire the worker’s pool of our Public SERVANTS from our districts, and the second where WE ALL appoint them DIRECTLY to their cabinet portfolio positions) then we eliminate their self-interested conflicts of loyalty-dividing political “parties,” (which always only “party” at our direct expense, anyway,) forever!

            ;-)

            GEORGE WASHINGTON WARNED YOU ABOUT THESE PARASITES:

            http://youtu.be/QlHVHNn3TBg

            http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/07/the-founding-fathers-tried-to-warn-us-about-the-threat-from-a-two-party-system.html

            http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2068315/posts

            http://politicalpartypooper.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/washington-warned-against-political-parties/

            http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/history-purpose/2012/mar/9/george-washington-warns-against-political-parties/

            http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/zr05z/til_george_washington_warned_that_forming

          • rbrooks

            you can not ‘fix’ democracy. it is a corrupt form of govt.

            even aristotle claimed it as such.

          • paendragon

            Aristotle was only a vile salesman who would’ve gotten himself kicked out of the Greek Philosophers’ club.

            Government is supposed to function as the largest collectively-owned insurance company – to defend our collective needs (like to defense from other groups, and to pave the roads, check the food supply, to project and maintain all those basic infrastructures necessary to enable potential life, and the freedom or liberty to promote one’s own happiness) but never to cater to private wants. Someone has to collect and administer the insurance dues. Notice I said what it’s “supposed” to be & do.

            But I do see what’s corrupt about “democracy,” even if Aristwaddle didn’t:

            If and when we all agree (and by all, I also mean all those humans in givernment and other groups) to obey the Golden Rule of Law, which most simply defines all situational morality as: “Do Not Attack First,” then there isn’t much need to hire (‘elect’) any governors to legislate anything beyond collecting and disbursing the insurance dues to guard, maintain, and where necessary, expand the country’s infrastructure.

            The Golden Rule of Law which defines morality is basic: “Do Not Attack First.”

            After all, when you choose to attack first, your choice defines you as the predatory, criminal aggressor, and they as your innocent victims; there’s no two ways about it! Bear in mind that threats are (psychological) attacks, aka intimidation, bullying, coercion, duress, extortion, and terrorism, and all first-attacks are already crimes. Counter-attacking, or attacking second (as even the legal system eventualy does) is a necessary requirement for all punitive and deterrant justice.

            So, the only principle any one ever need agree to, is of course the Golden Rule of Law which defines all situational morality as Do Not Attack First.

            From this agreement, we gain trust, progress, and civilization; this “social contract” means our only real right is to not be attacked first, and our only real responsibility is to not attack (therefore innocent) others first. Period.

            The rest are all symptoms, and all sub-sequent valid legislation depends on that Rule: Every law is an if/then warning which says, in effect: If and when you choose to attack first in this, that, or those ways, then this, that, and these punishments will apply to you.

            Bad laws are slanderously “pre-emptive” first attacks, like all gun control laws.

            Bad laws are crimes because they attack first. At “best” they are only ‘ethical’ lists of rules and excuses amerliorating bad, attack-first criminal premises.

            All any of the liberals’ so-called “gun control laws” can ever do, is to slander the whole population as guilty until never proven innocent; i.e: “SINCE you have guns, therefore you WILL use them to commit crimes, and NOT to defend yourselves and innocent others, SO we have to take them all away from you first, you criminals!”

            Since these slanderous laws accuse everyone without proof, they are by definition also prejudicial frauds, and as such, are illegal crimes in themselves, not valid laws at all.

            Guns exist. They will never again not-exist. More laws do not equal order. In general, no force or police or laws are necessary among free citizens who can and will govern themselves, while the opposite is: no amount of force or police or laws are enough for a people who CANNOT – or will not – govern themselves.

            A “Judge’s” only job is to determine rational cause-and-effect (who started it) and all irrational criminal excuses or alibis are based on the opposite, victim-blaming slanderous pretense.

            It should therefore be easy for any judge to see if a law is bad (an attempt to deprive citizens of due process, by disregarding any need for evidence by slanderously insisting on asserting that they are Guilty Until Never Proven Innocent, and so must impossibly prove a negative in order to defend them selves).

          • rbrooks

            whom has or is determining the correct function of ‘a’ form of govt?

          • paendragon

            Albert Einstein.

            And before him, that Cong Fuzi (“Confucius”) guy came up with that Golden Rule.

            Since then, it’s been reiterated in the UN’s founding charter, which defines the #1 war-crime as
            “To be the aggressor in war.”

            It’s also part of the Doctor’s Hippocratic Oath:
            “First, Do No Harm.”

            Even liberal social engineers recognize it as
            “the Precautionary Principle.”

            Small children instinctively know it as the:
            “But Mom! They Started It!” Rule.

            The barbaric opposite (what I’ve called the brazen rule of chaos) can best be seen as defined by islam.

            (Also known as criminal extortion). It’s either/or.

            ;-)

          • rbrooks

            one mans opinion. reading the posts on just this site, you may find a bit of opposition to your presentation of that definition.

            islam is no different than most other forms of mythology have been in the past or may be in the future.

            it is simply one of the more violent forms at this present time.

            humans have very little inherent knowledge. you must be taught.

            children are taught to blame others.

          • paendragon

            NOT really only “One man’s opinion,” no. It’s actually the only thing that works, in biology – organisms can be EITHER predatory parasites, OR collaborative symbiotes. The ones that succeed most are the latter.

            As for islam: Here’s islam’s “holy Message from god” as exemplified by the collective words and deeds of it’s Founder:

            “I will save humanity by lying to, extorting, torturing, robbing, burning out of their homes, kidnapping and ransoming, enslaving, raping and murdering everyone who even only verbally disagrees with me – and
            you can, too!”

            -Muhammad-

            Muhammad was really only a con-man and bandit-king, an arch-criminal who always blamed “god” for his own penchant for committing crimes. If Moe got away with committing a crime (and he tried them all,
            enthusiastically, more than once, but instead of ever showing contrition, bragged about how much fun it was to commit them, and advised everyone else to join in the fun, too), then it was held to be “obvious” that “god” wanted him to get away with having committed those crimes!

            So, islam is not a “religion” (at all, much less one “of peace”) nor is it a “race” (at all, much less one of “Poor, Oppressed, People Of Colour”)!

            Obviously, islam is ONLY an ancient, ongoing extortion-racket CRIME-syndicate, and the only “religious” part in it, is where they say:

            “God told us to commit these crimes!”

            (Capisce?)!

            ;-)

            We should simply BAN ISLAM – because everything moslems pretend to consider “holy” is already a crime!

            ;-(

          • rbrooks

            are you discussing forms of govt or biology?

            which form of govt may work best, is still just one mans opinion.

            and that opinion may very well change over time.

            insert most any form of mythology for islam and you present the same scenario.

            mythology is nothing more than the justification and validation for the actions of the followers.

            god told them to do it. in the name of god.

          • paendragon

            Humans are biological robots, so their forms of government – whether efficient or inefficient/counter productive – come under that category heading, too.

            So, which form of government works best is scientifically verifiable, based on objective fact, not subjective opinion.

            You are incorrect to assert that “all religions are the same” as far as advocating for violent crime goes.

            Concerning the claims of religion in general, let’s try to contrast them with those of philosophy and science:

            Philosophy – is speculation, presented AS speculation.
            Science – is tested speculation, presented AS tested speculation.
            Religion – is speculation, presented AS FACT.

            So, obviously, only one of these (religion) is a LIE – and lying is only the most basic form of theft (it’s the theft of the Truth) and all forms of theft ARE crime. All religions are crimes. We can both agree on that much.

            However, (that being said) at BEST, religion is the opinion of the religion-salesman, presented as fact, and sold as helpful advice: do what god advises, or bad things will happen, not because god is (or the gods are) out to get you, but because you ignored their laws (like gravity). And, at WORST, all “real” religions only say:

            “Obey our silly rules, or GOD (/’the gods’) will get you!”

            BUT ONLY ISLAM SAYS:

            “Obey our silly rules, or WE will get you (‘for god’)!”

          • rbrooks

            most mythology’s are the same. they have similar characters that play similar roles.

            most of those mythology’s have resorted to violent means, at some point in history, to preserve, protect or force their particular brand of mythology on others.

            all of that violence is, has been, deemed justified by the followers. their god(s) and their mythology validate their actions.

            islam is no different.

            remove the teachings of mythology and you remove the majority of the bias, racism and hate as well.

            removing islam will not make any change. there will still be too many mythology’s that will continue to use violence to obtain their goals.

          • paendragon

            Islam is absolutely different, because no “other religion” officially advocates for attacking any others (much less everyone else) first. And the obvious socio-economic results of their “Thou shalt kill!” creed are apparent from their own histories’ reports of their interactions with others:

            According to their own Eastern histories, islam has an official 1,400 year history of “holy” lies, extortions, robberies, tortures, arsons, kindappings, slaveries, rapes and 270 million murders (that’s OVER A QUARTER-BILLION INNOCENTS SACRIFICED TO ALLAH, so far – it’s a larger death-tally than that of EVERYONE ELSE, both secular and religious, COMBINED, and with an historical average of less than 1% of the global population to have committed it with, too)!

            So, simply and precisely because of their “THOU SHALT KILL!” cultural indoctrination, moslems are still from between four and several hundred times more likely to engage in murder and all other crimes, than everyone else in the world!

            NOTHING about islam is “defensive” in nature; it was predatory almost from the real beginning in Medina.

          • rbrooks

            don’t know your christian religion very well. something about abortion by sword tip. smiting thy enemies. burning witches. etc. the normal violence to be expected.

          • paendragon

            Obviously, you don’t know it very well at all. Enemies deserve to be smitten when they attack first, thus defining themselves as enemies. There’s nothing in the Bibles about burning witches; there was something in there that got mistranslated once, about not suffering poisoners to live, which makes total sense. Finally, none of the baby-killing bits were the commandments of God, but only advice given by some men to others, and some historical “So we invaded the city and killed everybody” bits in the Old Testament (i.e: from 1 Samuel 15:3, Deuteronomy 2:34, and Judges 21:10).

            So I’m pretty sure you’re just trying to justify your own cowardice in the face of islam by invoking the common, slanderously victim-blaming critical thinking logical fallacy known as the Argumentum Tu Quoque, which is basically “Two Wrongs Makes One of Them Into a Right!” i.e:

            “ISLAM ISN’T EVIL BECAUSE WE (i.e; you) ALL DO IT TOO! WHEE!”

            Well, if you can assert that “everybody” does it, then you hope you can’t be expected to challenge even the most obvious, muslim criminals, now, can you? Since it’s allegedly all a case of predetermined might-makes-right, then, since you can’t stop “EVERYone” from committing their allegedly holy crimes, then there’s also no reason to expect you to ever step up to stop ANYone – right?

            ;-)

          • vicki

            Here is a good description of the types of government out there. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

          • hardh8

            Exactly rbrooks, you just one man stating an opinion.

          • hardh8

            We the people are.

          • vicki

            As seen in this video

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

            As written in the Declaration of Independence:

            “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

            http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

          • hardh8

            America is NOT a democracy. We’re a republic. Even Aristotle knew the difference.

          • vicki

            This video explains well the difference between a democracy and a republic

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

          • hardh8

            That’s right we have to select the RIGHT people.

          • hardh8

            It sure will. EVERY DUMBacrat is going to get their teeth kicked down their penis sucking throats.

          • hardh8

            You’re delusional. The problem isn’ the congress it’s Pharaoh 0bama and the libRETARDS.

          • vicki

            Where did we, the people delegate authority to any court the power to decide what law is constitutional?

            I did look thru the Constitution (US) again and really couldn’t find it.

          • vicki

            Where did we, the people delegate authority to any court the power to decide what law is constitutional?

            I did look thru the Constitution (US) again and really couldn’t find it.

          • paendragon

            Since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, pretty-much by definition all lesser laws must agree with it’s tenets, or automatically be held invalid. The courts are empowered to rule on the ‘constitutionality’ of all lesser laws – they just rarely ever do so, any more, these days.

          • vicki

            I still don’t see where the courts (unless you mean the jury) were given the power to decide constitutionality of a “lesser” law. In particular where was SCOTUS given the power to judge this? I did find evidence that the courts are ONE but not only place for this determination to be made.

            http://politicalsmokeout.tumblr.com/post/25863901592/who-decides-constitutionality

            http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/02/27/who-decides-constitutionality/#.Ui-yeD_NnIk

          • paendragon

            I see your point, which is: “Who says we have to wait for THEM to decide if it’s a valid law or not!?” That’s true; there’s no legal or moral requirement to obey unjust laws.

          • vicki

            Correct. And the way we make clear to government that their law is unconstitutional is thru the soapbox (we tell our representatives), Ballot box (as in Colorado, we vote them out), and Jury box (we vote “not guilty” as is our duty http://www.fija.org)

          • vicki

            You might be and judging from your half truth above, probably are.

      • vicki

        paendragon writes:

        basically, “Do Not Attack First”) to their own brazen rule of chaos: “Always Attack First – Just In Case!”

        The common legal definition of this (attack first) is “prior-restraint”

        • paendragon

          i.e: illegal kidnapping; unjustified forcible confinement.
          Guilty until never proven innocent literal pre-judice. Fraud (since nothing can be proven) slander; aka: CRIMES!

          ;-)

    • vicki

      Rbrooks demostrates the art of the half-truth by writing:

      personal liberty illustrious writer, chip wood, wrote a story defending this action.

      How about you give the reader the REST of the story.

      • rbrooks

        sure, old chip made a half ass attempt to cover his ass with a second story where he blamed liberals for his original story. that first story was written from his heart, from his beliefs. which i am sure you share.

  • DalasKnight

    When people finally, if ever, wake up and see what is happening, police will become the enemy and people will stop cooperating with them and their investigations! When that happens, it will be very hard for them to make arrests! People may even start retaliating against them and it will become very dangerous to be a cop and you will see officers leaving the force for fear of their own safety!

    • Bob

      It’s only a matter of time DalasKnight their not nearly as tough and bold as they act. It’s getting close to having to shoot them first before they beat the cr…p out of you for no reason.

      • Urimas

        The real cops, those who passed an IQ test, a psichological test, those who have a familly and really care for the comunity were forced out: or by forced retiring, or by “budget cutting” or “dovnsizeing”. You cannot build a police state with people who have a heart and really care for community.The thugs posting today as policemen in US are the equivalent of SS troops in Hitler’s Germany. Actually, they follow the same training, and I swear this is true: At the Houston Police Academy, if you score to high to the IQ test – embrace yourself -YOU ARE REJECTED!!!!

    • Urimas

      And you think they didn’t figured out that yet?!!!…Why do you think TSA mushroomed from patting you on airports to puting barricades on highways?
      Police getting armored vehicles, which our troops in Iraq would dream for? Training and STATIONING foreign Police and SWAT troops on US soil, and if that wasn’t enough, Luftwafe , yes the Air Corp of German Military, got their own base in New Mexico! And as the personal stated ” We cannot wait to pay back!” (what happen to Germany in the WW II, I suppose…not the generosity of Marshall Plan!)

    • vicki

      I would rather that they left for honor’s sake.

  • paendragon

    “Random” checks are really only illegal, criminal harrassments (assaults on and breaches of personal privacy; aka kidnapping) which completely counter the true legal requirement for Probable Cause. They are totally invalid because they reverse the true criminal proof onus of both “innocent until proven guilty” and “beyond a reasonable doubt” to “guilty until never proven innocent” and the lesser, 51/49% civil-law test of “balance of probabilities” – i.e: “If they MIGHT have done it, then assume they DID do it!”

    All liberal laws are crimes, because they “pre-emptively” (and so, fraudulently) slander everyone as guilty until never proven innocent; they attack first.

    For insance, their “gun (i.e: people) control laws:”

    All any of these so-called “gun control laws” can ever do, is to slander the whole population as guilty until never proven innocent; i.e:

    “SINCE you have guns, therefore you WILL use them to commit crimes, and NOT to defend yourselves and innocent others, SO we have to take them all away from you first, you criminals!”

    Since these slanderous laws accuse everyone without proof, they are by definition also prejudicial frauds, and as such, are illegal crimes in themselves, not valid laws at all.

    Guns exist. They will never again not-exist. More laws do not equal order. In general, no force or police or laws are necessary among free citizens who can and will govern themselves, while the opposite is: no amount of force or police or laws are enough for a people who CANNOT – or will not – govern themselves.

  • John

    Amendment IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  • Carlucci

    It seems to me that Fedzilla has decided to get the po-po to turn against the American people because they probably can’t get the military to do it.

  • dave

    Haven’t seen this happen in the Pacific NW yet, nor heard any news reports on it. However, it wouldn’t come as a surprise in our nations never ending quest to remove freedoms from average citizens.
    1984 is a few years late, but definitely on the way!

  • IBCAMN

    just another step of progressives to wipe out the constitution and to control people!it might just be that revenue is down in these areas so the corrupt cops have to step up their game and make more money for their county!!

  • Patriot66

    maybe a war with Syria and/or Iran isn’t such a bad idea. If there are no foreign wars going on, who do you think the military industrial complex will turn on? That’s right. Why do you think the NSA is doing all that spying? Oh well, either now or later…

  • coal miner

    Not changing the subject, ,lets make hemp and pot legal.
    http://www.illuminati-news.com/marijuana-conspiracy.htm

    ARIJUANA is DANGEROUS. Pot is NOT harmful to the human body or mind. Marijuana does NOT pose a threat to the general public. Marijuana is very much in demand.…

  • hardh8

    Our founding fathers foresaw this day coming. When the government would grow so big and powerful that this kind of crap would happen, This is why they put the power to put Americans in prison in the hands of average citizens. So use the power you’ve got too protect all of our freedoms. When called, serve on jury duty and find everyone NOT GUILTY. From marijuana to murder, NOT GUILTY. This will bring the police state too it’s knees and force the government back into it’s cage. Where our founding fathers place it. Do this now before it’s too late.

    • vicki

      Actually we only need to find the defendant “not guilty” in cases of unconstitutional law. Thus, for instance, every law that makes possession of an object or thing illegal should be rendered null by jury nullification (one duty the courts DON”T want you to know about http://www.fija.org)

      Actions that directly infringe on the rights of another (murder for instance) ARE constitutional and the guilt or innocence should be decided in the normal way. It is why we instituted government to begin with. To protect the individual from force or fraud.