PDA

View Full Version : Our old "friend" PYB in the news



Capt Alfredo
03-05-2015, 10:40 AM
Looks like his suit was thrown out of court (again). As much of a dillweed as he might have been, he wasn't wrong for filing this suit. I think he was robbed. What do you all think?

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/03/04/air-force-pilot-unlawful-detainment-case-dismissed/24391687/

efmbman
03-05-2015, 11:17 AM
I initially thought he was off his rocker. Then I started doing some reading and independent study on constitutional rights. PYB was right on the money. I sent him a message of apology via his blog.

Those checkpoints are unconstitutional and should be disbanded. The only reason they are allowed to continue is that there are more than enough ignorant people that will "cooperate" and thus their actions lead to arrests. It 's a number game. I completely agree with the dissenting judge in that "Standing on one's rights is not an 'unorthodox tactic.' It is a venerable American tradition." Government can only overreach in its powers with the consent of the people.

Rusty Jones
03-05-2015, 11:32 AM
I initially thought he was off his rocker. Then I started doing some reading and independent study on constitutional rights. PYB was right on the money. I sent him a message of apology via his blog.

Those checkpoints are unconstitutional and should be disbanded. The only reason they are allowed to continue is that there are more than enough ignorant people that will "cooperate" and thus their actions lead to arrests. It 's a number game. I completely agree with the dissenting judge in that "Standing on one's rights is not an 'unorthodox tactic.' It is a venerable American tradition." Government can only overreach in its powers with the consent of the people.

PYB lives in the world of "what should be" instead of the world of "what is." Did they waste his time? Sure. But he added to it by wasting more of his own time by pursuing this case. That's his life if that's how we wants to live it, but if he sees anyone claim that they'd do something different from what he had done... he'll turn into the Hulk on PMS and go to town on their ass.

Rainmaker
03-05-2015, 01:05 PM
Rusty Nailed it. Some people's mission in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.

efmbman
03-05-2015, 01:30 PM
PYB lives in the world of "what should be" instead of the world of "what is." Did they waste his time? Sure. But he added to it by wasting more of his own time by pursuing this case.

OK... let's rewind to the 1950s and 60s in the deep south. During that time, the world of "what is" included rampant racism and denial of civil rights to blacks. Would the actions (pursuing the case) of those involved in the civil rights movement be viewed as wasting their time? I'm sure there will be responses along the lines of "but that's different!"

Rusty Jones
03-05-2015, 01:45 PM
OK... let's rewind to the 1950s and 60s in the deep south. During that time, the world of "what is" included rampant racism and denial of civil rights to blacks. Would the actions (pursuing the case) of those involved in the civil rights movement be viewed as wasting their time? I'm sure there will be responses along the lines of "but that's different!"

Yep, you're damned straight I'm going to point out that it's different, and you predicting that I'm gonna go that route doesn't invalidate what I'm going to say, which is this: the Civil Rights Movement wasn't one man's personal crusade, as is PYB's case. PYB likes to "fight battles" for it's own sake. It's something that he gets personal satisfaction from. Things he doesn't take into consideration is the fact that winning some battles may cost him the war. Sometimes, when the interests of two parties conflicts; it might be a good idea to concede if the opposing party getting their way is more important to them than you getting your way is to you.

PYB got himself into a bunch of BS, because he felt he was being inconvenienced when he shouldn't have been. While I completely understand that, that specific moment is not the time to be fighting that battle if you choose to fight it. It's like being given an order in the military - as long as following that order does not put you in violation of the UCMJ, you follow that order and take it up with the person who gave you that order later.

Such is life. Are there situations where you might be compelled to do certain things that you feel you shouldn't have to do? Of course, but the fact that you feel you shouldn't have to do them... you're gonna have to get over that shit.

sandsjames
03-05-2015, 01:58 PM
The problem was that he was a DB through this process. He could have taken 5 seconds, showed his ID, and been done with it.

The difference between this and the 1950s/1960s civil rights movement is that PYB was looking for a reason to cause a stink. I wouldn't be surprised if he drove through the check point purposely just to instigate the case. The civil rights movement wasn't about people going around looking for trouble...trouble was finding them.

And, don't forget, he's the one who also said that he wouldn't have participated in the Japanese internment but he also wouldn't have fought against it. He likes to pretend he's on a pedestal with his "fight" when, really, his convictions aren't as strong as he'd like everyone to think.

edit: And this biggest issue with this entire thing is the statement made that he was "an unusually uncooperative person". I realize that he didn't do anything "technically" wrong, but he did intentionally make things way more difficult than they needed to be. If I see a guy driving by my house in a fully armored car I would indeed become suspicious, warranted or not.

Modus
03-05-2015, 02:24 PM
I hope we're not seriously comparing this to the Civil Rights Movement lol.

Rainmaker
03-05-2015, 03:17 PM
These guys like PYB are much like those crazy storm chasers. I guess they are doing a service. But, you shouldn't be surprised if you wind up dead when driving right into the eye of an F-5 tornado just to try and catch it ripping shit up on video.

sandsjames
03-05-2015, 03:36 PM
Pot, meet Kettle.

efmbman
03-05-2015, 04:04 PM
The problem was that he was a DB through this process. He could have taken 5 seconds, showed his ID, and been done with it.

The difference between this and the 1950s/1960s civil rights movement is that PYB was looking for a reason to cause a stink. I wouldn't be surprised if he drove through the check point purposely just to instigate the case. The civil rights movement wasn't about people going around looking for trouble...trouble was finding them.

Interesting perspective. It is all about perspective. Remember the Greensboro Sit-In? Four black college students were refused service at a whites-only lunch counter. In protest, they stayed until the cafe closed. Then they returned the next day to continue to protest but their number increased to over 20. Day 3 - 60. Day 4 - over 300. The protests eventually spread all over the South and thousands of blacks were involved. Some endured violent reactions from whites. These blacks could have simply acknowledged that they were not going to be served and went about their business. I'm quite certain many of the whites viewed these upstart blacks as DBs, perhaps even instigators. Yet their actions are now viewed as a victory in the civil rights movement. Heck, they even have a monument in Greensboro commemorating their actions.

Perspective. In the context of 1960, those black students went to that lunch counter on day 2 purposely just to instigate.

I can see that differing points of view will not be entertained. PYB is considered as DB, so that clouds the message. Got it. To me, the main issue is enforcement of the Constitution. The character of the person that had their civil rights violated matters not. The violation still exists. I feel the Greensboro Four did the right thing. More Americans should do the right thing. We need fewer sheep in our population.

technomage1
03-05-2015, 04:08 PM
PYB was nuts but he's not wrong about the checkpoints being shady. It doesn't seem right a citizen should be randomly detained and asked to show proof of citizenship. I hate illegals as much as anyone - I'd throw every single one on a bus back home if I could - but the checkpoints aren't right, either.

TJMAC77SP
03-05-2015, 04:12 PM
There aren't many days that I agree with Rusty but here I do (strenuously) and I further applaud him for not rising the bait presented with the faulty comparison of the border checks with voter literacy tests and other policies DESIGNED to keep blacks from voting.

Therein lies the fault in the logic. The border checks are there to attempt to stem the tide of both illegal aliens and contraband from entering the country. That is a legitimate purpose and one that has been upheld more than once, regardless what lay people may decided is unconstitutional or not. They aren't designed to hinder or present a hardship to US citizens. Perhaps in the future the SCOTUS will rule them unconstitutional, then and only then, will the claim of their lack of constitutional validity be valid.

PYB was (and overall is) a DB during the stop. His demeanor and actions prove this. I am sure the court saw this as well. Of course judges generally don't call plaintiffs/defendants douchebags so they make rulings instead.

There is still hope for PYB with his case against Officer Edwin Richter of the SAPD. The other defendants have been dismissed but Richter is still on the hook.

TJMAC77SP
03-05-2015, 04:14 PM
PYB was nuts but he's not wrong about the checkpoints being shady. It doesn't seem right a citizen should be randomly detained and asked to show proof of citizenship. I hate illegals as much as anyone - I'd throw every single one on a bus back home if I could - but the checkpoints aren't right, either.

So what is an alternative to getting your wish of 'throwing every single one of a bus back home" if the first step necessary is to identify them?

TJMAC77SP
03-05-2015, 04:20 PM
The uninitiated are very fond of citing the Constitution when stating their rights. The absolute nature of the rights guaranteed under the amendments known as the Bill of Rights.

Nonsense. Not a single right so delineated there is absolute. Now the exact degree of how they are limited has ebbed and flowed during out history (and continues to do so) but we would do well to keep a more informed outlook when making statements about what is or isn't "Constitutional"

One thing I am absolutely sure of is that no single person has the right to unilaterally decide how and when to comply with the laws and the interpretation of those laws as made by the courts.

It is one thing to protest. It's another to actually interfere with legitimate law enforcement activities.

technomage1
03-05-2015, 04:23 PM
So what is an alternative to getting your wish of 'throwing every single one of a bus back home" if the first step necessary is to identify them?

Sigh. There are multiple opportunities to identify people - starting with work, traffic stops, banks, air travel, etc. All of these require ID or an SSN/TIN. End the practice of day laborers by fining the daylights out of anyone who uses them sand you've made a good start.

I'm not willing to violate the constitution in order to protect it.

sandsjames
03-05-2015, 04:43 PM
I'm not willing to violate the constitution in order to protect it.Very good point. And it leads to how PYB could have put himself in a better position.

When asked for ID, hand it to the agent. Then, file for a civil rights violation after the fact. Fight it that way. What he did was intentionally be difficult and video tape the instance with hopes for personal gain.

And, as mentioned, the border stops have been deemed constitutional several times. If the courts haven't overturned it then, whether one agrees or not, then it's not a violation. If one doesn't agree with the law then are perfectly within their rights to challenge it...in the courts, not at the checkpoint.

I've been told on several occasions over the years by more than one 1st Sgt something along the lines of "If your boss tells you to jump in a lake, you better be soaking wet when you show up to my office to complain about it." Of course, that's an exaggeration, but it gets the point across.

Rainmaker
03-05-2015, 05:08 PM
Pot, meet Kettle.

and a Happy Purim to you too Brother Sandsjames!

Rainmaker
03-05-2015, 05:26 PM
Very good point. And it leads to how PYB could have put himself in a better position.

When asked for ID, hand it to the agent. Then, file for a civil rights violation after the fact. Fight it that way. What he did was intentionally be difficult and video tape the instance with hopes for personal gain.

And, as mentioned, the border stops have been deemed constitutional several times. If the courts haven't overturned it then, whether one agrees or not, then it's not a violation. If one doesn't agree with the law then are perfectly within their rights to challenge it...in the courts, not at the checkpoint.

I've been told on several occasions over the years by more than one 1st Sgt something along the lines of "If your boss tells you to jump in a lake, you better be soaking wet when you show up to my office to complain about it." Of course, that's an exaggeration, but it gets the point across.

Hahaha...civil rights violation..... y'all bitchez crack Rainmaker the hell up with all this constitutional law stuff. It don't take a law degree to know that NONE of this shit is constitutional.

You have corporate whores legislating from the bench that all undocumented democrats should be provided with free shit at the American citizen's expense, While the 70 IQ, TSA goons of the police state sticks a camera up your Grandmas ass at the Airport while, you stand there like an idiot with your shoes in your hand because of the terrists...Hell, she's just trying to fly to Reno to play Bingo with her Social security check, That ain't worth shit anymore!

The only option left is for the elected representatives to defund it. And 2 months into the new session and these clowns have already rolled over on Amnesty. Wanna know why? Cause, it's all scripted fucking act.

Welcome to the new Banana republic you stupid Red team/Blue team Morons.

Rusty Jones
03-05-2015, 05:33 PM
See everyone here arguing over the Constitution? This is EXACTLY why people like PYB won't get very far by being "constitution lawyers."

TJMAC77SP
03-05-2015, 08:17 PM
Sigh. There are multiple opportunities to identify people - starting with work, traffic stops, banks, air travel, etc. All of these require ID or an SSN/TIN. End the practice of day laborers by fining the daylights out of anyone who uses them sand you've made a good start.

I'm not willing to violate the constitution in order to protect it.

And I am not either. What violation are you speaking of?

Not that it is really relevant to illegal aliens crossing our southern borders but none (but work) of the things you cited require a SSN or TIN.

So that leaves penalties (which are actually already in place) on employers. That is your alternative to the thousands who cross the US southern borders?

Now it's my turn to sigh.

TJMAC77SP
03-05-2015, 08:20 PM
hey........I had a thought.

It is my opinion that any pass in the NFL which is caught while the player is flat on his back is an illegal catch.

This opinion is held regardless of the officials interpretation of the standing league rules.

So, now what? Maybe I could file a suit?

sandsjames
03-05-2015, 08:25 PM
hey........I had a thought.

It is my opinion that any pass in the NFL which is caught while the player is flat on his back is an illegal catch.

This opinion is held regardless of the officials interpretation of the standing league rules.

So, now what? Maybe I could file a suit?

You could definitely file a suit if you choose. That's well within your rights. Though you might be better off if you don't tape yourself whining about how unfair that call was while wearing your favorite team's jersey.

TJMAC77SP
03-05-2015, 08:29 PM
You could definitely file a suit if you choose. That's well within your rights. Though you might be better off if you don't tape yourself whining about how unfair that call was while wearing your favorite team's jersey.

Haha....who did that?

sandsjames
03-05-2015, 08:52 PM
Haha....who did that?

The game was metaphor for the border incident.

Stalwart
03-05-2015, 10:45 PM
Those checkpoints are unconstitutional and should be disbanded.

Are they?


Border Patrol agents at checkpoints have legal authority that agents do not have when patrolling areas away from the border. The United States Supreme Court ruled (United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 881-882 - 1975) that Border Patrol agents may stop a vehicle at fixed checkpoints for brief questioning of its occupants even if there is no reason to believe that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. The Court further held that Border Patrol agents "have wide discretion" to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area for additional brief questioning.

Whether we agree or disagree that they they are constitutional or not … it would seem the Supreme Court settled that issue circa 1975.


PYB lives in the world of "what should be" instead of the world of "what is."

I have no problem with being idealistic, standing up for “what should be” etc. but how you go about it can exponentially influence the outcome.


If I see a guy driving by my house in a fully armored car I would indeed become suspicious, warranted or not.

He drives an armoured car? No shit? If so, that may get him some unwanted attention.


PYB was nuts but he's not wrong about the checkpoints being shady. It doesn't seem right a citizen should be randomly detained and asked to show proof of citizenship.

Being shady does not make it illegal, again noting that the Supreme Court has ruled on it. When I was stationed in Southern CA and TX, I went to Mexico a lot and all but one or two times I was stopped & about half the time I was taken to the secondary checkpoint. As with any law enforcement, not being an ass to the guy enforcing the rule meant I was in and out of there pretty fast.

If you disagree with the policy, fine ... disagree and fight the policy; being an ass to the people trying to do their job / enforce the policy and being "an unusually uncooperative person" is only inviting a problem … like it or not that is life, whether you are dealing with law enforcement or the server at your local IHOP. This reminds me of a thread from a while ago where someone was boastfully talking about how they were an ass to a gate guard enforcing the random ID check on base … I will at least applaud PYB for going to court and fighting the policy in addition to being difficult to the individual officer at the checkpoint.


One thing I am absolutely sure of is that no single person has the right to unilaterally decide how and when to comply with the laws and the interpretation of those laws as made by the courts.

Absolutely correct. +1


See everyone here arguing over the Constitution? This is EXACTLY why people like PYB won't get very far by being "constitution lawyers."

True, especially since the Supreme Court has ruled on this type of thing … would seem to end the debate since the institution mandated in Article III of the Constitution as the final interpreter of federal constitutional law has ruled on this … like their ruling or not it seems that it is what it is.

I don’t know PYB nor follow his blog, I admire his dedication I question his methods … I think he could be much more effective by altering how he tries to make his point; but that never seemed to be his style.

In a collation of many different issues (and threads) whether you are talking about Michael Brown in Missouri, the KKK in Idaho or PYB on the US-Mexico border … there is no irony in the fact that when people go out looking for trouble that they tend to find it.

TJMAC77SP
03-06-2015, 02:09 AM
The game was metaphor for the border incident.

Sorry, I knew that but missed the jersey reference.

technomage1
03-06-2015, 07:44 AM
Being shady does not make it illegal, again noting that the Supreme Court has ruled on it. When I was stationed in Southern CA and TX, I went to Mexico a lot and all but one or two times I was stopped & about half the time I was taken to the secondary checkpoint. As with any law enforcement, not being an ass to the guy enforcing the rule meant I was in and out of there pretty fast.

If you disagree with the policy, fine ... disagree and fight the policy; being an ass to the people trying to do their job / enforce the policy....

So, back in the segregated south, was a black person who was removed to the back seat of the bus or refused service supposed to be nice to person doing this to them? It was only when people began passively resisting - and it can be argued PYB was doing exactly that - that the law and society changed. Because that's when the issue gets attention, both in the media and the courts. Rosa Parks knew exactly what she was doing and what it would lead to - a citation and a court case - when she refused to change seats. She was hand picked by the NAACP for this role.

Stalwart
03-06-2015, 08:53 AM
So, back in the segregated south, was a black person who was removed to the back seat of the bus or refused service supposed to be nice to person doing this to them? It was only when people began passively resisting - and it can be argued PYB was doing exactly that - that the law and society changed. Because that's when the issue gets attention, both in the media and the courts. Rosa Parks knew exactly what she was doing and what it would lead to - a citation and a court case - when she refused to change seats. She was hand picked by the NAACP for this role.

I don't really know what someone in that time should have done & I didn't know Rosa Parks was selected for her role in the civli rights movement, that is interesting.

My speculation here is that PYB may have been looking for this incident to happen as a way to challenge the policy ... in a sense recruiting himelf for his cause. I don't think his method is violent, but he seems to not accept that he is on the wrong side of a Supreme Court ruling on the issue.

I just picture this type of conversation:


PYB: This is unconstitutional!

Supreme Court: No, it isn't.

PYB: I know the Constitution better than all of you.

**I don't think PYB is dumb, stupid nor ignorant and have no doubt he can quote the Constitution, but he isn't the one with the Constitutional authority to make a ruling on what is actually Constitutional.

Rusty Jones
03-06-2015, 11:12 AM
So, back in the segregated south, was a black person who was removed to the back seat of the bus or refused service supposed to be nice to person doing this to them? It was only when people began passively resisting - and it can be argued PYB was doing exactly that - that the law and society changed. Because that's when the issue gets attention, both in the media and the courts. Rosa Parks knew exactly what she was doing and what it would lead to - a citation and a court case - when she refused to change seats. She was hand picked by the NAACP for this role.


I don't really know what someone in that time should have done & I didn't know Rosa Parks was selected for her role in the civli rights movement, that is interesting.

There's much speculation on this. First, the "official" story is that Rosa Parks wasn't trying to do anything big. She was just tired, and didn't want to get up. Then everyone rallied to her cause.

The conspiracy theory, however, says that this isn't likely. Thousands of other black people have gotten arrested for doing the same thing - not just for sitting at the front of the bus or not giving up their seat for a white passenger, but also for violating segregation policies - i.e., using white water fountains or going into white waiting rooms in hospitals, etc.

So, if so many others got arrested for doing the same things, why was Rosa Parks so special? Supposedly, this was a set up by the NAACP - a group that was pretty powerful long before that incident.

If this is true, then she wasn't on some one-person crusade.

I also don't think it's so much a matter of "constitutional rights" in PYB's case. Let's just put this bluntly - PYB has very childish contempt for authority. He's simply rebelling against it, and patting himself on the back while believing that he's "right." That's what he takes comfort in.

technomage1
03-06-2015, 11:47 AM
,
There's much speculation on this. First, the "official" story is that Rosa Parks wasn't trying to do anything big. She was just tired, and didn't want to get up. Then everyone rallied to her cause.

The conspiracy theory, however, says that this isn't likely. Thousands of other black people have gotten arrested for doing the same thing - not just for sitting at the front of the bus or not giving up their seat for a white passenger, but also for violating segregation policies - i.e., using white water fountains or going into white waiting rooms in hospitals, etc.

So, if so many others got arrested for doing the same things, why was Rosa Parks so special? Supposedly, this was a set up by the NAACP - a group that was pretty powerful long before that incident.

If this is true, then she wasn't on some one-person crusade.

I also don't think it's so much a matter of "constitutional rights" in PYB's case. Let's just put this bluntly - PYB has very childish contempt for authority. He's simply rebelling against it, and patting himself on the back while believing that he's "right." That's what he takes comfort in.

As far as Rosa Parks, I looked it up and you're right. While she was a member of the NAACP at the time of her arrest, none of her interviews state she was preselected. I heard something like that on a PBS documentary a while back so either I heard wrong, misremembered, or it was a biased film. Anyway, once she was arrested they did chose to take on her case because she projected a solid, respectable image and they felt she was a good face for the movement. At least one earlier arrest of a 15 year old girl the NAACP chose not to pursue.

I'm not going to pretend to understand PYBs motivations. It's easy to speculate but only he knows for sure. Regardless of what they are, in this issue, anyway, I think he's got a valid point about the checkpoints not being kosher.

technomage1
03-06-2015, 11:57 AM
I don't really know what someone in that time should have done & I didn't know Rosa Parks was selected for her role in the civli rights movement, that is interesting.

My speculation here is that PYB may have been looking for this incident to happen as a way to challenge the policy ... in a sense recruiting himelf for his cause. I don't think his method is violent, but he seems to not accept that he is on the wrong side of a Supreme Court ruling on the issue.

I just picture this type of conversation:



**I don't think PYB is dumb, stupid nor ignorant and have no doubt he can quote the Constitution, but he isn't the one with the Constitutional authority to make a ruling on what is actually Constitutional.


I think he does understand he's in the wrong side of a supreme court decison. However, over history the court has reversed itself, so it's not as if once a decison is made that it, it will never be overruled. Plessy vs. Ferguson and Brown vs. Board of Education is the most well known case. A complete list is at www.en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_U.S._Supreme_Court_decisions

That's why going to court is still a viable strategy for change. And we all have the right to interpret the constitution for ourselves, and to disagree with the law. That's important in a republic.

Rusty Jones
03-06-2015, 12:24 PM
I'm not going to pretend to understand PYBs motivations. It's easy to speculate but only he knows for sure.

One need not speculate too hard. Everything he rants about suggests wholesale contempt for authority. Even his very screen name on MTF suggests this.


Regardless of what they are, in this issue, anyway, I think he's got a valid point about the checkpoints not being kosher.

I'm willing to bet that had we not heard about this incident, and any one of were in his situation, we would've all complied and not have thought anything of it. I don't think any of us would've thought twice that this was "unconstitutional" or anything like it. Unless, of course, we do what PYB does - i.e., do daily readings of the Constitution like a practicing Christian does with the Bible - and FIND things to try to get over on. I bet he wouldn't have thought anything was wrong with those checkpoints, had he not found something in the Constitution that he felt TOLD him that they were wrong.

Much like barracks/dorm/sea lawyers in the military, the regulations (in his case, the Constitution) simply becomes a clutch when he doesn't want to comply with something that he doesn't like.

TJMAC77SP
03-06-2015, 12:24 PM
I think he does understand he's in the wrong side of a supreme court decison. However, over history the court has reversed itself, so it's not as if once a decison is made that it, it will never be overruled. Plessy vs. Ferguson and Brown vs. Board of Education is the most well known case. A complete list is at www.en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_U.S._Supreme_Court_decisions (http://www.en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_U.S._Supreme_Court_decisions)

That's why going to court is still a viable strategy for change. And we all have the right to interpret the constitution for ourselves, and to disagree with the law. That's important in a republic.


You are again providing examples which don't really support PYB's actions. As I stated earlier......" Perhaps in the future the SCOTUS will rule them unconstitutional, then and only then, will the claim of their lack of constitutional validity be valid."

You certainly have the right to interpret the Constitution and disagree with a law. You are doing so here. You don't have the right to do as PYB did and expect no consequence. That is a very important distinction.

Rainmaker
03-06-2015, 01:44 PM
You guys talk about pursuing legal remedies. As if it's easy to do. But, the reality is that most of the people, that are the victims of harrassment don't have the financial resources to fight it, even if they did happen to know what their rights are (most don't). We have all kind of "rights". But, exercising them can get you killed. I personally would never give a cop static, you are playing with fire if you do.

My personal opinion is all this conflict is just a backlash of people not being responsible for their own shit and counting on the .gov to solve every problem. We recently had our local PD out to the VFW for some free dinners. They're overwhelmingly decent cats that got into policing because, they wanted to help people. They're being put in a bad position by out of control governments and they don't like it any more than we do. You have to also keep in mind that they don't have the level of training that we in the military do.

Agree or Disagree, The thing about PYB is at least he puts his money where his mouth is.... So, PYB (if your reading this) Your fellow Oath-keeper Rainmaker sends you much respect my man. I worry about your health deliberately provoking them. Keep in mind,They may not know what you are trying to teach.

The thing is with all this public/private partnership backed up by a police state. We are heading into a time, when EVERYTHING is going to be privatized and accountable only to the owners. An armed citizenry and a Domestic Police State harassing them will not be able to co-exist. If you think other-wise you are kidding yourself. We have to Peacefully roll this stuff back or it won't end well

TJMAC77SP
03-06-2015, 04:34 PM
You guys talk about pursuing legal remedies. As if it's easy to do. But, the reality is that most of the people, that are the victims of harrassment don't have the financial resources to fight it, even if they did happen to know what their rights are (most don't). We have all kind of "rights". But, exercising them can get you killed. I personally would never give a cop static, you are playing with fire if you do.

My personal opinion is all this conflict is just a backlash of people not being responsible for their own shit and counting on the .gov to solve every problem. We recently had our local PD out to the VFW for some free dinners. They're overwhelmingly decent cats that got into policing because, they wanted to help people. They're being put in a bad position by out of control governments and they don't like it any more than we do. You have to also keep in mind that they don't have the level of training that we in the military do.

Agree or Disagree, The thing about PYB is at least he puts his money where his mouth is.... So, PYB (if your reading this) Your fellow Oath-keeper Rainmaker sends you much respect my man. I worry about your health deliberately provoking them. Keep in mind,They may not know what you are trying to teach.

The thing is with all this public/private partnership backed up by a police state. We are heading into a time, when EVERYTHING is going to be privatized and accountable only to the owners. An armed citizenry and a Domestic Police State harassing them will not be able to co-exist. If you think other-wise you are kidding yourself. We have to Peacefully roll this stuff back or it won't end well

So you respect them enough to feed them and appreciate their motivations and the tough position they find themselves in but applaud the guy to thinks the exact opposite and sees evil doers in "the vast majority" of police officers? The guy who spent over $70K to outfit his car for both defensive and offensive actions as well as recording interactions with law enforcement. The guy who buy your own words (and his actions) deliberately provoke law enforcement whenever the opportunity arises? This is your thought process on this?

Never mind the audacity of "trying to teach them".

Ya lost me.

Rainmaker
03-06-2015, 05:33 PM
So you respect them enough to feed them and appreciate their motivations and the tough position they find themselves in but applaud the guy to thinks the exact opposite and sees evil doers in "the vast majority" of police officers? The guy who spent over $70K to outfit his car for both defensive and offensive actions as well as recording interactions with law enforcement. The guy who buy your own words (and his actions) deliberately provoke law enforcement whenever the opportunity arises? This is your thought process on this?

Never mind the audacity of "trying to teach them".

Ya lost me.

Rainmaker is naturally distrustful of all forms of authority. I guess it's hard-wired into the DNA passed down from my ancestor who was one of the first southern volunteers to march with the first Maryland Militia. You can read about them here:

http://www.michaelcresapmuseum.org/history.html

I see the Militarization of the local Police forces as a growing problem. Most good cops (including some in my family) agree with me.

Unlike you, when I look around, I don't have much faith in the legal system or our representatives to actually represent the will of the citizenry anymore.

But, I can still separate the officers from the morons directing them. Troops don't make policy. They execute policy.

But, Like I said. I personally wouldn't recommend poking a hornet's nest. Like Rusty I live in the world of what is and not what should be. dealing with the .law is Like a small business owner dealing with the mob, when they come to shake him down for a tribute, it ain't right. but, it can be harmful to your business not to comply with them.

I don't know anything about PYB, other than watching the video and taking a 10 minute look at his blog. His posts seem well thought out and reasonable.

Not sure what you mean by offensive weapons on his vehicle? What's he got a .50 cal mounted in the bed of a Hilux or something?

Mjölnir
03-06-2015, 07:36 PM
Agree or Disagree, The thing about PYB is at least he puts his money where his mouth is....

Definitely will agree, the guy is willing to actually do something about what he believes.

technomage1
03-06-2015, 07:45 PM
You are again providing examples which don't really support PYB's actions. As I stated earlier......" Perhaps in the future the SCOTUS will rule them unconstitutional, then and only then, will the claim of their lack of constitutional validity be valid."

You certainly have the right to interpret the Constitution and disagree with a law. You are doing so here. You don't have the right to do as PYB did and expect no consequence. That is a very important distinction.

Who said he didn't expect consequences?

I'm really running out of ways to try and explain this, but I'll give it a final try. Let's say you disagree with a law. There are ways to try and change the law. One is to go through Congress and ask them to legislate on the issue. The other way, if you can't get the legislature to address the issue, is through the courts. Get yourself punished, arrested, detained, etc by failing to comply with the law to give yourself legal standing and go to court, hoping the law will be overruled. Yes, this is riskier since the court may side against you, but it is a viable strategy, as the cases I cited prove. As I noted, you need legal standing to do this. If I, for example, were to try and sue about the checkpoints, I couldn't since I've never been through one or been negativity affected by one. I don't have standing.

Just because a law is now constitutional doesn't mean lower courts can't rule on it or the court won't ever readdress the issue. And the process I described above is how that can be done.

At the time of the civil rights act many thought the Jim Crow laws were unjust and unconstitutional. But at the time they were the law of the land, in other word constitutional. That doesn't invalidate the claim of unconstitutionality in any way.

I guess it's the differnce between stating, "It's unconstitutional" and "In my opinion, it's unconstitutional". The first can be taken as a statement of fact or as an opinion given the context. I think it PYBs case and the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 60s most people would understand that when saying the former, someone was really expressing the later. As a modern day example, "it's unconstitutional" could apply to a fact such as slavery is unconstitutional, or an opinion that "It's unconstitutional" to have a flag burning law.

Stalwart
03-06-2015, 10:58 PM
Who said he didn't expect consequences?

I'm really running out of ways to try and explain this, but I'll give it a final try. Let's say you disagree with a law. There are ways to try and change the law. One is to go through Congress and ask them to legislate on the issue. The other way, if you can't get the legislature to address the issue, is through the courts. Get yourself punished, arrested, detained, etc by failing to comply with the law to give yourself legal standing and go to court, hoping the law will be overruled. Yes, this is riskier since the court may side against you, but it is a viable strategy, as the cases I cited prove. As I noted, you need legal standing to do this. If I, for example, were to try and sue about the checkpoints, I couldn't since I've never been through one or been negativity affected by one. I don't have standing.

I do agree with you, I think he fully expected consequences. There could certainly be litigation where the Supreme Court could reexamine or readdress the issue, which is what I think PYB was trying to do (establish redress so that he could file suit and then litigate the issue.) What he was doing is a fairly common and smart tactic.

However, the Court has a long standing record of not overturning itself barring a resounding change in either: Court demographics, adjustive / additive legislation, or disparate views between lower courts. None of this has really happened since 1975; so it is just very, very unlikely. I do applaud PYB for trying, most people would not.


Just because a law is now constitutional doesn't mean lower courts can't rule on it or the court won't ever readdress the issue. And the process I described above is how that can be done.

Well, a circuit or district court cannot rule to overturn the Supreme Court. Per Article III, when the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is final; its decisions can be altered only by constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Supreme Court itself.


BT BT



At the time of the civil rights act many thought the Jim Crow laws were unjust and unconstitutional. But at the time they were the law of the land, in other word constitutional. That doesn't invalidate the claim of unconstitutionality in any way..

You are right, Jim Crow laws were the law ... but were they really Constitutional? This is kind of just an argument about semantics here & I am going to back to a discussion with my Senator from when I was on Capitol Hill. In our system just because a law is established by legislation doesn't make it 'Constitutional' per se ... otherwise a court could not rule the law was not Constitutional (a Constitutional Amendment is different since it actually changes the Constitution.) A state legislature could overwhelmingly pass a law saying women are not allowed to vote, the governor could sign it into law … based on precedent it is clearly not Constitutional. It would become a function of the Judiciary Branch to invalidate the law (Legislative Branch action) by ruling it unconstitutional.

This same conversation that I had with the Senator was really interesting as she detailed that (her opinion) the most powerful people in our government were the Supreme Court Justices:

-They serve for life or they decide to retire
-They can be impeached, but only for misconduct … not their legal opinions.
-They cannot be removed if ill or incapacitated but not willing or able to retire.
-They are the final authority on the evaluation of the Constitutionality of a law or issue.
-Their rulings are final.
-Their rulings literally shape the country, the law, the legislature (what the legislature will try to even pass etc.) and policies.

TJMAC77SP
03-07-2015, 12:21 AM
Rainmaker is naturally distrustful of all forms of authority. I guess it's hard-wired into the DNA passed down from my ancestor who was one of the first southern volunteers to march with the first Maryland Militia. You can read about them here:

http://www.michaelcresapmuseum.org/history.html

I see the Militarization of the local Police forces as a growing problem. Most good cops (including some in my family) agree with me.

Unlike you, when I look around, I don't have much faith in the legal system or our representatives to actually represent the will of the citizenry anymore.

But, I can still separate the officers from the morons directing them. Troops don't make policy. They execute policy.

But, Like I said. I personally wouldn't recommend poking a hornet's nest. Like Rusty I live in the world of what is and not what should be. dealing with the .law is Like a small business owner dealing with the mob, when they come to shake him down for a tribute, it ain't right. but, it can be harmful to your business not to comply with them.

I don't know anything about PYB, other than watching the video and taking a 10 minute look at his blog. His posts seem well thought out and reasonable.

Not sure what you mean by offensive weapons on his vehicle? What's he got a .50 cal mounted in the bed of a Hilux or something?

One of the features he had installed was an electric shock if someone tries to open the doors. There was a link of him showing off the car on some past thread.

TJMAC77SP
03-07-2015, 12:23 AM
Definitely will agree, the guy is willing to actually do something about what he believes.

Not a very high bar. Fred Phelps did the same thing.

Mjölnir
03-07-2015, 12:29 AM
Not a very high bar. Fred Phelps did the same thing.

True, but I can admire that we have a country that allows someone like Fred Phelps to exist rather than living in a state where thou shalt conform; even if what he says / preaches is disgusting.

Plenty of people gripe about what shoud be, seeing PYB say what he thinks should be, and then him actually gong through such personal efforts to make it be so is admirable -- agree with his stance or not.

TJMAC77SP
03-07-2015, 12:34 AM
True, but I can admire that we have a country that allows someone like Fred Phelps to exist rather than living in a state where thou shalt conform; even if what he says / preaches is disgusting.

Plenty of people gripe about what shoud be, seeing PYB say what he thinks should be, and then him actually gong through such personal efforts to make it be so is admirable -- agree with his stance or not.

So it is permissible to hold his actions in contempt and to do anything but admire him (while defending his right to express his opinion as long as he doesn't break the law)? Sounds like what I have said all along.

Also, sounds like we are talking about Fred Phelps again.

TJMAC77SP
03-07-2015, 12:36 AM
Who said he didn't expect consequences?

I'm really running out of ways to try and explain this, but I'll give it a final try. Let's say you disagree with a law. There are ways to try and change the law. One is to go through Congress and ask them to legislate on the issue. The other way, if you can't get the legislature to address the issue, is through the courts. Get yourself punished, arrested, detained, etc by failing to comply with the law to give yourself legal standing and go to court, hoping the law will be overruled. Yes, this is riskier since the court may side against you, but it is a viable strategy, as the cases I cited prove. As I noted, you need legal standing to do this. If I, for example, were to try and sue about the checkpoints, I couldn't since I've never been through one or been negativity affected by one. I don't have standing.

Just because a law is now constitutional doesn't mean lower courts can't rule on it or the court won't ever readdress the issue. And the process I described above is how that can be done.

At the time of the civil rights act many thought the Jim Crow laws were unjust and unconstitutional. But at the time they were the law of the land, in other word constitutional. That doesn't invalidate the claim of unconstitutionality in any way.

I guess it's the differnce between stating, "It's unconstitutional" and "In my opinion, it's unconstitutional". The first can be taken as a statement of fact or as an opinion given the context. I think it PYBs case and the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 60s most people would understand that when saying the former, someone was really expressing the later. As a modern day example, "it's unconstitutional" could apply to a fact such as slavery is unconstitutional, or an opinion that "It's unconstitutional" to have a flag burning law.

I too am running out of ways to explain this.

Using the failed logic employed by PYB (and now you) is that there is a potential for over 300 million opportunities to state something is constitutional or not, all would have to be considered valid in that train of thought.

Silly.

Ignoring all the chaff, it looks like you have really summed up the entire discussion at the end.

In your opinion (and PYB's) the border checks are unconstitutional. This is not factually true given the current rulings from not only the SCOTUS but Federal district courts as well but it is your opinion.

Everything else is a distraction. I assume now that you are stating the in your opinion the checks are unconstitutional so we are no longer talking about who would defend or not defend the constitution.

TJMAC77SP
03-07-2015, 12:39 AM
You are right, Jim Crow laws were the law ... but were they really Constitutional? This is kind of just an argument about semantics here & I am going to back to a discussion with my Senator from when I was on Capitol Hill. In our system just because a law is established by legislation doesn't make it 'Constitutional' per se ... otherwise a court could not rule the law was not Constitutional (a Constitutional Amendment is different since it actually changes the Constitution.) A state legislature could overwhelmingly pass a law saying women are not allowed to vote, the governor could sign it into law … based on precedent it is clearly not Constitutional. It would become a function of the Judiciary Branch to invalidate the law (Legislative Branch action) by ruling it unconstitutional.

This same conversation that I had with the Senator was really interesting as she detailed that (her opinion) the most powerful people in our government were the Supreme Court Justices:

-They serve for life or they decide to retire
-They can be impeached, but only for misconduct … not their legal opinions.
-They cannot be removed if ill or incapacitated but not willing or able to retire.
-They are the final authority on the evaluation of the Constitutionality of a law or issue.
-Their rulings are final.
-Their rulings literally shape the country, the law, the legislature (what the legislature will try to even pass etc.) and policies.

The key point in this point you have made is " It would become a function of the Judiciary Branch to invalidate the law (Legislative Branch action) by ruling it unconstitutional."

technomage1
03-07-2015, 01:18 AM
.
I too am running out of ways to explain this.

Using the failed logic employed by PYB (and now you) is that there is a potential for over 300 million opportunities to state something is constitutional or not, all would have to be considered valid in that train of thought.

Silly.

Ignoring all the chaff, it looks like you have really summed up the entire discussion at the end.

In your opinion (and PYB's) the border checks are unconstitutional. This is not factually true given the current rulings from not only the SCOTUS but Federal district courts as well but it is your opinion.

Everything else is a distraction. I assume now that you are stating the in your opinion the checks are unconstitutional so we are no longer talking about who would defend or not defend the constitution.

Yes, O literal one, it is my opinion it's unconstitutional. And if you believe something is unconstitutional, you are indeed defending the constitution if you fight it. You may lose. You may have consequences. But that doesn't mean it's not worthy of passive resistance techniques.

Mjölnir
03-07-2015, 01:32 AM
So it is permissible to hold his actions in contempt and to do anything but admire him (while defending his right to express his opinion as long as he doesn't break the law)? Sounds like what I have said all along.

Pretty much.

I do solemly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies ...

I don't defend it just for those people I agree with.

TJMAC77SP
03-07-2015, 03:34 AM
.

Yes, O literal one, it is my opinion it's unconstitutional. And if you believe something is unconstitutional, you are indeed defending the constitution if you fight it. You may lose. You may have consequences. But that doesn't mean it's not worthy of passive resistance techniques.

I always chuckle when people with no cogent argument left somehow think that simply accusing me of being accurate somehow diminishes my argument and somehow strengthens theirs.

TJMAC77SP
03-07-2015, 03:35 AM
Pretty much.

I do solemly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies ...

I don't defend it just for those people I agree with.

I am a bit confused. Have I said anything that would lead you to believe that I would do less?

Mjölnir
03-07-2015, 04:11 AM
I am a bit confused. Have I said anything that would lead you to believe that I would do less?

Not at all, I wasn't 'targeting' you by saying that ... just throwing it out there.

technomage1
03-07-2015, 09:14 AM
I always chuckle when people with no cogent argument left somehow think that simply accusing me of being accurate somehow diminishes my argument and somehow strengthens theirs.

Says the man who completely and utterly failed to see my point and argued over semantics.

sandsjames
03-07-2015, 11:10 AM
Pretty much.

I do solemly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies ...

I don't defend it just for those people I agree with.

So do you support and defend it based on your opinions of what it means or based on what the courts have ruled it means?

Let's not forget, PYB is an officer in the military who is more than willing to preach to you about the oath. So is the oath about your interpretation of the constitution or the actual, legal, rulings about what is constitutional? Because if it's about the individual's interpretation then we've got bigger problems than checkpoints.

Mjölnir
03-07-2015, 11:18 AM
So do you support and defend it based on your opinions of what it means or based on what the courts have ruled it means?

Let's not forget, PYB is an officer in the military who is more than willing to preach to you about the oath. So is the oath about your interpretation of the constitution or the actual, legal, rulings about what is constitutional? Because if it's about the individual's interpretation then we've got bigger problems than checkpoints.

I believe we are subject to the rule of law.

TJMAC77SP
03-07-2015, 01:01 PM
Says the man who completely and utterly failed to see my point and argued over semantics.

I failed to see nothing and neither did you. What you failed to do is admit that your point was flawed.

An opinion is not always a fact. If you are going to defend someone's actions based on an opinion which is diametrically opposed to facts as they stand (it's RJ's '"what should be" instead of the world of "what is.") then your argument is flawed from the beginning.

Edit: I went back and reviewed your posts on this thread. You started off simply stating your opinion that the border checks are 'shady'. Perhaps if you had stopped there? When you cited replacement measures for the border checks and starting making comparisons to the civil rights movement you went down a rabbit hole.


(speaking of semantics, I am aware my first sentence is flawed but I am sure the readers get my meaning)

TJMAC77SP
03-07-2015, 01:07 PM
Not at all, I wasn't 'targeting' you by saying that ... just throwing it out there.

From a retirement speech I once heard.............

"……….For much the same reason, I don’t support a Constitutional Amendment to make burning or desecrating the US flag acrime.Free Speech includes the ideas and opinions you don’t like as much as the ones you do. Anything else would describe another country,not ours.

Just after Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination by a member of the radical right in that country, the authorities arrested and jailed the owner of a print shop who had produced a poster which showed Rabin in a Nazi SS uniform. While the poster was hateful and inappropriate, it had nothing to do with the assassination other than to support the ideals of the radical right. I sincerely believe an arrest like this wouldnever happen in America. This is why we wear this uniform. Not only to protect those who think like us but those whose ideas and opinions we revile……………"

Sums up my beliefs quite well.

Rainmaker
03-07-2015, 01:39 PM
All this constitution talk stuff is great. But, the constitution is a shell of itself that has been picked apart by greedy lawyers like vultures eating a dead carcass on the side of the road.

You can have all the rights you want on paper. But, if you don't have the legal staff, political protection, court protection, insurance protection, and private security protections necessary to negotiate the system. Then you basically have no rights in practice.

It's a big club... and you ain't in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nyx-z5cods

sandsjames
03-07-2015, 01:41 PM
I believe we are subject to the rule of law.

So as a military member, subject to the UCMJ, and sworn to defend and support the current laws, should a military member be challenging the constitution? Is that any different than being at a political rally in uniform, etc? Let's not forget, PYB made it clear to the agent that he was an officer in the military. Is that acceptable?

Rainmaker
03-07-2015, 01:56 PM
So as a military member, subject to the UCMJ, and sworn to defend and support the current laws, should a military member be challenging the constitution? Is that any different than being at a political rally in uniform, etc? Let's not forget, PYB made it clear to the agent that he was an officer in the military. Is that acceptable?

He made it clear he was an officer in the military, in order to prove that he was a US citizen. I don't know why PYB even bothered with all that drama becasue, he would've been better off just saying "me no speaky americano senor", since border patrol standing orders are to let all the illegals go on their way unimpeded.

Rainmaker
03-07-2015, 03:32 PM
One of the features he had installed was an electric shock if someone tries to open the doors. There was a link of him showing off the car on some past thread.

so, was it like a taser shock or just a little tickle, like when you piss on an electric fence? and How is that an offensive weapon? What is the purpose of that, to stop car jackers from ripping you out of your seat at a red-light? Look, The guy obviously see's himself as a crusader standing up to these perceived police goons. I wouldn't do it. But,once again it's his business, so long as he ain't breaking the law.

TJMAC77SP
03-07-2015, 04:36 PM
so, was it like a taser shock or just a little tickle, like when you piss on an electric fence? and How is that an offensive weapon? What is the purpose of that, to stop car jackers from ripping you out of your seat at a red-light? Look, The guy obviously see's himself as a crusader standing up to these perceived police goons. I wouldn't do it. But,once again it's his business, so long as he ain't breaking the law.

Not sure of the point here. You asked a question, I answered it.

Rainmaker
03-07-2015, 04:54 PM
Not sure of the point here. You asked a question, I answered it.

Ok, here is the point. In response to my asking you what offensive weapons PYB had on his POV you said.....
"One of the features he had installed was an electric shock if someone tries to open the doors. There was a link of him showing off the car on some past thread"

So, How is that an offensive weapon? I think it's looney too. but, seems to me that if you keep your hands off his Private Property you won't get shocked. or does it have prongs that shoot out 30' like a MIL-SPEC TASER brand?

If you're not breaking the law, then there's no reason for the po po to open your vehicle door. Of course, They already know this which why they didn't attempt to open his door. I think They did a good job of de-escalating it. But, These situations can get sideways real quick, which is why I say PYB is playing with fire. Don't fuck with the Police. Nomsayin?

TJMAC77SP
03-07-2015, 08:06 PM
Ok, here is the point. In response to my asking you what offensive weapons PYB had on his POV you said.....
"One of the features he had installed was an electric shock if someone tries to open the doors. There was a link of him showing off the car on some past thread"

So, How is that an offensive weapon? I think it's looney too. but, seems to me that if you keep your hands off his Private Property you won't get shocked. or does it have prongs that shoot out 30' like a MIL-SPEC TASER brand?

If you're not breaking the law, then there's no reason for the po po to open your vehicle door. Of course, They already know this which why they didn't attempt to open his door. I think They did a good job of de-escalating it. But, These situations can get sideways real quick, which is why I say PYB is playing with fire. Don't fuck with the Police. Nomsayin?

Oh, I see. You classify an electric shock which will strike when anyone touches the door handle as defensive. I find it to be an offensive weapon but see your point. We certainly agree on the loony aspect.

BTW, in most states if you rig a shotgun (or other booby trap which causes physical harm) to fire when a door is opened you will most likely be charged with a crime. Sounds defensive but...........

Rusty Jones
03-07-2015, 09:56 PM
Have any of you ever walked out to the parking lot after you were done shopping, only to find out that your car keys weren't working? You take a step back, and you realize... although this car is the same make, model, and color as your vehicle... this isn't yours!

You weren't trying to break into his vehicle. It was simply big ass parking lot that you were searching for your car in, after being in the mall for three hours.

Why should someone like that get shocked?

Capt Alfredo
03-07-2015, 11:12 PM
So as a military member, subject to the UCMJ, and sworn to defend and support the current laws, should a military member be challenging the constitution? Is that any different than being at a political rally in uniform, etc? Let's not forget, PYB made it clear to the agent that he was an officer in the military. Is that acceptable?

Hell, yes, he should. Constitutionality is determined in the courts. If a person feels his rights have been violated and that government agents are violating the Constitution, where better to lodge his protest than in the courts? We are supposed to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. If you think there is a domestic "enemy," short of insurrection, the courts would be the right place to go.

Mjölnir
03-08-2015, 12:00 AM
This is why we wear this uniform. Not only to protect those who think like us but those whose ideas and opinions we revile……………"

I have heard it said that "The freedom of speech is not meant to protect speech that we like."

Mjölnir
03-08-2015, 12:27 AM
So as a military member, subject to the UCMJ, and sworn to defend and support the current laws, should a military member be challenging the constitution? Is that any different than being at a political rally in uniform, etc? Let's not forget, PYB made it clear to the agent that he was an officer in the military. Is that acceptable?

As long as the challenge is lawful; then I would think we have more of an obligation to do so than the average citizen. The catch is you make your challenge as a private individual and not as a representative of the military (like attending a political rally in uniform is a no-no.)

Rainmaker
03-08-2015, 12:59 AM
Oh, I see. You classify an electric shock which will strike when anyone touches the door handle as defensive. I find it to be an offensive weapon but see your point. We certainly agree on the loony aspect.

BTW, in most states if you rig a shotgun (or other booby trap which causes physical harm) to fire when a door is opened you will most likely be charged with a crime. Sounds defensive but...........

http://www.businessinsider.com/david-eckerts-traffic-stop-in-new-mexico-2013-11

"A New Mexico man is suing the city of Deming and several cops for allegedly forcing him to undergo an anal cavity search, three enemas, and a colonoscopy after a routine traffic stop"

These days one can never be too careful!! PYB prolly needs to start keeping a mousetrap in his butthole...

TJMAC77SP
03-08-2015, 02:34 AM
http://www.businessinsider.com/david-eckerts-traffic-stop-in-new-mexico-2013-11

"A New Mexico man is suing the city of Deming and several cops for allegedly forcing him to undergo an anal cavity search, three enemas, and a colonoscopy after a routine traffic stop"

These days one can never be too careful!! PYB prolly needs to start keeping a mousetrap in his butthole...

All I can say to this story is.....................WOW !!!

Stalwart
03-08-2015, 03:51 AM
http://www.businessinsider.com/david-eckerts-traffic-stop-in-new-mexico-2013-11

"A New Mexico man is suing the city of Deming and several cops for allegedly forcing him to undergo an anal cavity search, three enemas, and a colonoscopy after a routine traffic stop"

These days one can never be too careful!! PYB prolly needs to start keeping a mousetrap in his butthole...

One less place I ever intend to visit. Whoa.

sandsjames
03-08-2015, 12:16 PM
As long as the challenge is lawful; then I would think we have more of an obligation to do so than the average citizen. The catch is you make your challenge as a private individual and not as a representative of the military (like attending a political rally in uniform is a no-no.)

Of course we have an obligation, to a certain point. But my point is, as military members, are you supposed to break the law in order to challenge it? That's the biggest issue, in my mind.

If there is an AFI that I don't like, that doesn't mean I can disobey the AFI in order to protest/challenge it. There are proper channels.

sandsjames
03-08-2015, 12:27 PM
If you think there is a domestic "enemy," short of insurrection, the courts would be the right place to go.Yes, they would...but not a blog by an officer with the video of being against authority.

Let's look strictly at the military side. Is his approach in this situation appropriate? No matter how good his intentions were, what impression would this give to his subordinates? Can they be allowed to ignore orders that they THINK are illegal, even if they aren't?

Robert F. Dorr believes strongly that any person should be allowed to drive on to a military base without an ID card. Is the proper way to get his point across for him to run the gate? Or is it to challenge it through other channels?

Rollyn01
03-08-2015, 02:46 PM
Yes, they would...but not a blog by an officer with the video of being against authority.

Let's look strictly at the military side. Is his approach in this situation appropriate? No matter how good his intentions were, what impression would this give to his subordinates? Can they be allowed to ignore orders that they THINK are illegal, even if they aren't?

Robert F. Dorr believes strongly that any person should be allowed to drive on to a military base without an ID card. Is the proper way to get his point across for him to run the gate? Or is it to challenge it through other channels?

If a subordinate has to question the morality/legality of an order, then it is upon the leader to properly justify it as any misunderstandings of an order can cost lives. You do so during training exercises to get it out of the way so that come time to execute them on the battlefield, it's done with little to no hesitation. The greatest of mistakes that many leaders are guilty of, more often then not, is that they believe that a subordinate should blindly follow their orders because questioning their orders is equivalent to questioning their competence or authority. As much as it can be said it is laziness on the part of the subordinate to find a way to escape having to do anything that they are told, it can be and should be equally applied to the lack of effort that many of those in leadership positions to train their subordinates and ensure that they have the knowledge and proficiency required to carry out any orders or tasks given to them. It may seem like a chicken and egg situation, but it really isn't. You lead, they follow. Not because you demand blind obedience but because "A good general approaches his soldiers with his humility and enforces discipline with an iron fist." Besides all that, who gets in trouble if the subordinate happens to execute an order that turns out to be illegal/immoral? Remember, "I was just following orders" doesn't work and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

As for Robert F. Dorr, the best counter-point I could give is good ol' MacChrysler's views on the president's policy even though UCMJ forbids such views to be publicly noted and displayed in the fashion that it was. Now that question becomes not whether such views should go through official channels, but rather, whether or not those views are really a relevant issue or it's just someone complaining for that "look at me please" time. Most of the time, doing the former just sweeps things under the rug like it never happened while getting nothing done. Doing the latter allows us to address the issue that may be there that no one knew about and thus allow us to deal with it. Even if there was no issue, we can be sure that they will be no issues later on in the future.