User Profile: 2GodBeTheGlory


Member Since: September 02, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [1] September 29, 2014 at 9:44am

    Pay attention. The original term “driver” was applied to the profession of “driving” cattle (a “Driver”). To this profession, it was legal to apply “regulation” by the state as it was a profession. At no point can transportation of a private person going from point “A” to point “B” be identified as regulatory, for if you did, then you would allow the state to “regulate” everyones movements. Communist Russia, anyone?

    History is a good thing, you might want to learn it to understand where “things” derived from.

    Let’s follow a line of questions, shall we?

    Roads are paid for by whom?

    Who owns the roads?

    Can you regulate all use of said road? (i.e. require a horse to be regulated by the state in order to make use of said road?)

  • [1] September 26, 2014 at 8:56am


    Right now, we are talking about a suspected murder. Remember, no one saw the shooter. Could this person be the actual shooter? Sure. However, can you say with absolute certainty that this person shot the officers?

    Here are the facts that we are being told:

    - Two officers shot, one killed.
    - No evidence of the actual shooter (person or camera)
    - The suspected shooter’s car was found crashed, nearby
    - 4 shots in about 90 seconds
    - The shooter “hates police”
    - 1,000 LEO with air support have a person held up in a 5 square mile are, for 2 weeks
    - Sightings – no shots
    - LEO obtain locksmiths to enter into houses without warrant nor exigent circumstances
    - LEO prevents citizens from entering nor leaving their homes
    - One of the victims is “friends” with the suspected shooters sister-in-law (brothers wife)

    Now, some other information that we do have:

    - Since the 1969, it is considered “good police work” to lie to citizens
    - Since 1975, it is considered “good police work” to “fabricate evidence to support a deception”
    - In this circumstance, LEO entered property illegally (no warrant – no exigent circumstance)
    - In this circumstance, LEO illegally prevented citizens from entering and leaving their homes – illegal
    - LEO are not responsible nor accountable for safety
    - The only legal job that an officer has is to bring to justics (court) a person where PC is meet.

    I do not trust a liar and a criminal, do you?

  • [1] September 26, 2014 at 8:03am


    Are schools today not even teaching the very basics of our country? Have you, by chance, ever heard of the U.S. Constitution?

  • [13] September 25, 2014 at 1:22pm


    Do you have information about this case that I do not? If not, what basis are you placing your claim that I have any belief one way or the other? Your childish response is telling of your blood-lust based on what someone tells you, instead of using your God given brain.

    Your claim that I want a murder to be released without being held accountable if furtherest from the truth. What I will say is that I cannot trust a liar and a criminal, how about you?

  • [6] September 25, 2014 at 1:09pm

    hmm, first, the only information that we have received so far is from a bias group that have already broken the supreme law of the land. Therefore, my trust in their words is very low. 2nd, most police force “snipers” are not accurate. Most shots fired by LEO “snipers” are about 40 to 60 yards, hardly extreme long range. The do not even need to calculate their shot at those ranges. They put a PM II on a .223 and call themselves “sniper”.

    A thousand yard shot “on a dime” is rare, even with a .50, however, it wold still take a bit of time to calculate for distance, windage, ballistics, temp, round temp, pressure, ect. to get a cold bore shot like that.

    “sounds like the kind we can do without” – So, am I, as a citizen, to trust the state where the state has already broke the supreme law of the land?

    Responses (2) +
  • [11] September 25, 2014 at 12:48pm


    “doing his job” – does NOT include breaking into houses without exigent circumstances or warrant, nor preventing homeowners from entering nor leaving their house. The sighting of a suspect in an area does not allow for LEO onto someones property, period. Now, if a witness viewed the suspect going into or inside of a house, then that would provide exigent circumstance. The “we think the suspect is in the area” does not authorize the state to prevent movement nor enter and search any house. Understand that LEO have no legal responsibility nor accountability for the safety of anyone. Therefore, LEO and the state have no authority to prevent movement by citizens “just to keep them safe”.

    We have a crime in which no person witnessed the shooter. We have a suspect, identified by a profession that is both bias and believes that to lie to citizens is considered “good police work”. These are the indisputable facts in the case.

  • [38] September 25, 2014 at 11:26am

    “the truck looked like his” – no, not the same model nor even the same color. The officers stated that the sound of a newspaper landing on the sidewalk sounded like a gun, and thus the reason they fired upon them (over 100 rounds). Never did they identify their “targets” – admitted.

    Responses (1) +
  • [25] September 25, 2014 at 11:19am

    Yes, forget the courts! Kill him! He doesn’t deserve a trail! He killed an officer of the state so all rights are removed! MOB RULE!

    …….hmmmmm, except that we have only heard one side of the story, being told by a bias group in a profession where it is considered “good police work” to lie to citizens. Remember, LEO has broken into homes without warrant nor exigent circumstance (someone saw the suspect enter or in the house), prevented citizens from leaving nor entering their homes – again, without exigent circumstance. Further, as per SCOTUS, LEO have no duty, obligation, nor accountable for the protection of anyone. Therefore, the state has NO authority to prevent a person from travel from nor to their home- under any circumstance.

    I will reserve judgment for the specific case and suspect at hand. We may never know the truth of both sides- or even who shot who. All we have for sure is that an officer is dead with no witness of the shooter.

  • September 24, 2014 at 10:59pm



    “VERY confused on…” – Hmmm, nope. The Constitution was ratified only after the promise of the Bill or Rights to be ratified. Without that promise, it would not be signed by several of the states (see Bill of Rights preamble). Further, the Constitution establishes the Federal Gov., describing the inner-workings and foundation, however, the Bill of Rights restricts (these are considered inalienable rights – therefore not given but recognized that every person has for being a person). The mistrust of the establishment of the Federal Gov. was rampant amoung the colonist, and thus the reason why Patric Henry did not attend the signing. It was not until the Bill of Rights was ratified that most of the cautious patriots endorsed the Constitution.

    Sorry, police do not “enforce” the law as stated by the courts (see change from “peace officer” to “police officer” to LEO). The actual, single lawful right of LEO (in all it’s forms) is to bring to the courts those people where PC has established to have committed a crime. LEO is NOT preventative, nor regulatory. It is NOT their legal duty to protect, even an “active shooter” situation.

    “But they DO use the power for GOOD” – Are you stating that I would not be able to provide proof that LEO, DA’s and courts do not prosecute to the same extent for the same crime committed by a LEO as private citizens – given all facts are the same (similar circumstance)? Be very careful how you answer this.

  • September 24, 2014 at 9:11pm


    “I never meant..” – as I’m sure that you are aware, actions and words have consequences. My comment was based purely upon your stated position. As I am (and the courts) are very specific in the use of words, paying attention to detail is exceedingly important. Therefore I would caution you in the use of them – for your position, as stated, was the ILLEGAL use of force by the state to detain/arrest a citizen.

    “mortally dangerous…” – Totality of the facts are not in question, nor did I remove the right, and need from LEO to use such as RS, as provided by SCOTUS. So, no, I did not even suggest it, nor would I.

    “his PC justification for taking action” – I think you might be confusing PC for RS. Additionally, I would point out, that even with the lesser, RS, the requirement stands that the totality of evidence be of a specific crime that has, is, or will be committed in the officers EXPIRENCE.

    “right to stop everyone” – actually, no, the state cannot stop and check EVERYONE. Might want to read the ruling.


  • [3] September 24, 2014 at 3:52pm


    “Hot head”? Hmmmm, I am using your statement of “is behaving like someone with something to hide and finding any way he can to weasel out of compliance with a proper authority. Cops, at that point, DO have probable cause…”. to this comment I reject your position, and why I selected the case I put forth as it reveals that a constitutional act CANNOT be utilized, in of itself, as a fact for detainment much less PC. You stated, quite clearly, that the ACT of a citizen to assert their inalienable right IS cause for PC.

    I am not confused, as you stated, as the inalienable right is the final principle to which a person stands, and it shall NOT be crossed. To this, there is NO discussion for if the state is willing to cross that line, then all lines are irrelevant. To which part of this do you not understand?

    “Resistance is not the way…..” – some facts for you and Glenn to consider before making those remarks:

    - Taxation at time of revolutionary war was at most 18%
    - It was General Thomas Gage lawful order to destroy/confiscate the military grade firearms that the colonist had “unlawfully” obtained and maintained that started the war.
    - The British courts where slanted/biased and used haphazardly in performing searches of the colonist.
    - British courts prosecuted based on desire of the king or lords of the time, not the crime

    Was the revolutionary war “lawful” and “justified”? If so, by what specific merits (in your view)? What final line would you reject?

  • [12] September 24, 2014 at 1:20pm


    It is necessary to take into account of a persons perception. For instance, someone who tells LEO “but I’ve done nothing wrong” will fall on deaf ears, regardless of the merit due to the officers experience and perception (every private citizens is a suspect and must PROVE their innocents).

    Now, a person that only has had one experience with an officer where the officer clearly broke the law, then views many of the you-tube videos where other officers break the law, coupled with many court cases, then the persons view AND experience reveal a clear perception that officers clearly break the law.

    Does not help when SCOTUS allowed LEO to lie to citizens, however, upheld that citizens cannot lie to LEO – for that IS the very definition of double standard. Further, LEO are generally not charged at the same rate as a private citizen for the same crime.

  • [4] September 24, 2014 at 10:30am


    Yes, they do know the rights, however, because they are considered “burdensome”, they are ignored; “let the judge sort it out” line of teaching. Meaning that LEO will knowingly infringe upon citizens rights, time and time again, to see if a defendants lawyer picks up on it AND the judge dismisses the case due to the infringement. If the judge does not, well “good for them”. If the judge does “slam” them over the infringement, well, lets not go to that judge again (i.e. DA drops the charges).

  • [8] September 24, 2014 at 10:25am

    Your point of view is unconstitutional, and therefore against the supreme law of the land. Further, if you continue in your illegal action of encouraging and harboring criminals, then you are also a felon (not charged nor convicted – yet).

    To understand, please read the bottom of PDF page 13 through page 14 to understand how your idea that the citizen must PROVE his innocents and that an officer has the RIGHT to require a citizen to prove there innocents where the citizen invokes a right is incorrect and illegal..

    Mere hunch does not authorize nor provide RS for a detainment, much less PC. Further, a person that refuses to answer ant question by the state cannot be a reason, or even part of, for an investigatory detainment.

  • [54] September 24, 2014 at 9:54am

    I do not know the specific laws for the state of Ill, however, I do understand the clear language of the Constitution. Further, I understand that driving a car is a privilege, I also understand that by doing so does not allow the state to remove an inalienable right (eview the Merriam-Webster definition of inalienable). SCOTUS has ruled that stopping SOME cars for a quick ascertainment of impairment is permitted, however, I do not see that authorization of allowing the state to remove an inalienable right – under ANY circumstance. Additionally, the permit to create such check-point does NOT and cannot require a citizen to have ANY conversation with LEO, nor allows for an officer from touching/handling ANY private property (the requirement for that, PC, or exigent circumstances are still required). So, keeping that in mind, coupled with the knowledge that these stops do not perceptually change any drunk-driving numbers, we are left with the very real, legal right that a citizen has in dealing with these stops – remain silent and never talk with LEO. This might be construed as an inconvenience that “prohibits an officer from performing their duties”, the very same could be said of the states action from prohibiting a lawful citizen from going about their day. Bottom line, constitution matters and therefor trumps “officers needs”, no matter what LEO says or does for it IS (“not was”) the supreme law.

  • [1] September 18, 2014 at 10:25pm

    Actually, there is a law against it. The cell phone frequencies are license by the FCC, and therefore if you transmit within those frequencies without a license IS illegal. A report should be filed with the FCC.

    Yes, this company is trying to sell secure phones, and this information will help his company, however, there are other ways to obtain information of the cell phones that do not require a transmitter (i.e., you can capture the data packets all day long – legally, however, decrypting those in order to listen to conversations is illegal).

    What it boils down to is that LEO will do this – illegally – but never refer to the information obtained in court. They will find out when a meeting will occur or a drop for an illegal event and just happen to be there when it happens. Might even obtain a court order for a search based on “an informant” that does not exist. The only way to stop these illegal tactics is to setup LEO in a reverse sting operation where the only way that “information” could be obtained of an “illegal” event would be via capture of cell phone data.

  • [8] September 18, 2014 at 6:42pm

    It is a felony to setup a transmitter without a license. Where is the reports to the FCC?

  • [2] September 14, 2014 at 6:23pm


    “At that point in time the police had a duty…” – Nope. not event legally bound to respond to an active shooter.

    A call to 911 of a “suspicious person” does NOT authorize RS for a detainment. Therefore, LEO mays approach and ask, however, what they cannot do is hinder the person, even upon no response. They may not perform a pat-down, nor use any show of force in preventing the citizen from going about his way. Yes, LEO can ask questions, but never is a citizen REQUIRED to respond to an officers question (other than upon arrest to provide name, address, DOB).

    Everything else is supposition. Remember, LEO have been caught in lies before in the use of lethal force, to include “lunging” where video PROVED no such act by citizen after LEO made official written report on said use of lethal force.

    I don’t trust a liar, how about you?

    Remember, since early 1960′s, it became lawful by SCOTUS ruling for LEO to lie to citizens. Now, it is considered “good police work”. Further, LEO view the Bill of Rights as an speed bump, so that LEO will IGNORE it, and “see what the judge does”, over and over again. They do NOT care about the Bill of Rights, UNLESS it becomes a high profile case. In that case, the officer will resign, and sign up on another police force after a period of time for things to blow over. Vary rarely will an officer be charged like a citizen would, with all facts being the same.

  • [10] September 14, 2014 at 12:30pm

    After reading the Constitution, reading the words and acts of our founding fathers, I must disagree that a person with a lethal weapon that flees an officer with no other cause for detainment other than “suspicious person” allows for an officer to use lethal force. I do not trust a liar, and it is apparent that this officer lied (re: lunged).

    There are way to many murders and use of lethal force recently to agree with the state at this juncture. Too many “the person lunged” reasons used where video proved that the officer lied on official written reports of a lethal use of force.

    Could it have happened just the way the officer described – sure. Did it? Don’t know, could go eitherway. The statement of “well, someone called us”, again, does NOT justify detainment nor use of ANY force. That is THE law.

  • September 13, 2014 at 5:42pm


    Your attempts to insert racism, sexism, bigotry, and discourse into a discussion of a person following what an ancient book dictates is telling of the type of person you are. It is apparent that you hate this country, the precepts under it’s establishment, the founders, the founders intent, and the actual idea of freedom OF religion (as opposed to “FROM”). It is apparent that you HATE this mans position in following the Holy Bible and the man/God for which his entire religion is based upon. You hate Jesus, that is your choice, and you HATE anyone who dares to follow Jesus.

    I would surmise that you believe yourself as “all inclusive” and tolerant. After reading your comments, it is clear that you are bigot (I would suggest using Merriam-Webster definition for the word “bigot”).

    By the style of your writing, one could conclude that you where sexually assaulted by someone who claims that they follow Jesus. Remember this, Jesus ACTUALLY stated that it would be better for a man to have a stone fastened around his neck and tossed into the sea than a person cause a child to sin. Does Jesus words make up for a sexual assault on a child? No. However, you will never find in the Bible where it is acceptable to sexually assault anyone. The life of Jesus, his words, and actions never promote slavery, prostitution, drunkenness, any form of sexual issues, racism, of any other sin – So, what was it that Jesus did or said that makes you so offended by HIM?

123 To page: Go