User Profile: 2GodBeTheGlory


Member Since: September 02, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [1] August 27, 2014 at 6:58am

    Murder is wrong. Don’t care who it is from.

    When citizens are placed in fear of their life by these actions and return fires upon an officer who is NOT in legal standing for being there (back yard – for instance – no warrant, no extenuating circumstance, children present). Especially if the homeowner has video.

  • [49] August 26, 2014 at 4:24pm

    Let’s see; Kill a “police dog”, get charged with murder of an officer. Police kill YOUR dog – so what? Let’s see a citizen charge an officer like that and see what the police dog would do, and if it be justified.

    Responses (3) +
  • [29] August 24, 2014 at 4:56pm

    I didn’t think this could happen in LA. Don’t they have stricked laws against using/having guns?

    Responses (1) +
  • [31] August 22, 2014 at 12:44pm

    It’s not just Cathlic schools, it’s the removal of morals as the communist agenda lists. Removal morals, blur the line of “marriage” and secual conduct, lie, cheat, steal, and destroy the Consitution and this is what you get. You didn’t ask God to leave, you Kicked him out, by force. He left as he always does – to leave you to your own vice. Good luck!

    Responses (1) +
  • August 21, 2014 at 9:33pm


    Yep, that fax gets more and more garbled due to “line noise”……

  • [2] August 21, 2014 at 9:23pm

    Same as the source on Fax that said the eye socket was fractured. Anonymous is never a reputable source. Anytime I hear “expert”, anonymous, official, senior official, officials, senior economist, etc., it means absolutely nothing to me.

    Responses (2) +
  • [2] August 21, 2014 at 9:19pm

    Quick,an anonymous source said “?????” it must be true! It’s all hearsay until we have confirmation people. Quit jumping to conclusions things that it must be right. Event then, unless I see a video, I will always be suspicious of the facts around the case. “There where 12 witnesses saying the same thing”, again, hearsay. Remember, hearsay is the reason why there are people in the streets acting foolish, breaking the law and hurting businesses, not based on facts of the case.

    I recommend stopping the Knee-JERK reaction.

    To The Blaze: Stop leaning on with the “cop was justified” slant. Just like the media outlets that claim that the officer was the “bad guy who viciously murdered an innocent gentle giant child”.

  • August 21, 2014 at 6:08pm


    You are assuming that all the information provided “a source said” is accurate and correct. Making assumptions is what is causing all the problems out there to begin with. From childhood to young adult, I had respect for LEO in all forms. However, as an adult, I have seen too many officers murdering citizens, lying about it in a police report, then a video reveals the opposite. I have found that police are trained to infringe upon the rights of a citizen then “let the courts sort it out to see if it passes” – so that the inalienable rights are now NOT a concern to the state. I see judges preventing LEO, other Judges, DA’s/prosecuting attorneys from being charged on laws because “there are too many laws for any one person to know” – yet a citizen can and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the very same law. How about a primary charge of “resisting arrest” without having an actual arrest taken place? How many people have been taken to jail under that charge where the charge is later dropped or dismissed by the judge? Based on that, an officer can take a women into custody, rape her, if she resist and strikes him, he can still charge her with “resisting arrest” and “assaulting a police officer” even though his acts be illegal the charge can still stick (read the “resisting arrest” law for your state).

  • August 21, 2014 at 3:31pm


    “If you assault me.. thats reason enough for me to believe you want to harm me.. and reason enough for me to shoot you.”

    Hmmm, hopefully you do not carry a firearm, for if a person could think that way, then a person that cutt you off on the road, or hit you would give you “reasonable” reason to “fear for your life”. Here is another – If LEO comes up to you and takes your hands by force without saying a word, would that not, in your example, justify “self defense” to enclude “shooting” the officer – for officers have murdered innocent citizens before? If you really think this way, and others do as well, then there is going to be much blood on the street.

    If this keeps up, I can see in another 10 years and officer killing a citizen because “he looked at me right in the eye and I became in fear of my life so I shot him”.

  • [3] August 19, 2014 at 11:58pm


    12. How is it that we have come to a position that for a person to exist, they MUST enter into a contract with the state?
    13. Why is the state and federal government have ANYTHING to do with birth, death, marriage? Before the FED, you would find all that information in peoples Bible, not in government hands. They have the census, they need no more info than how many people – that’s it. You think the founders would have given all this information to the British?

    Glenn says there are no real immediate problems – I strongly disagree. I did take your advice, Glenn, I did read their words and have reviewed their actions – this is NOT the country they would have called “home”. You claim that we should follow this perrson or that person – why don’t you say to follow the founders? Are they less than the ones you put forth because they took a stand? Is it because you feel we have a say, anymore? I can show many more examples that reveal we have no say in this Fed owned government anymore. You may think otherwise, that’s your choice, however, I strongly suggest that YOU follow your own recommendations and find out for yourself.

  • [3] August 19, 2014 at 11:54pm


    6. Why is it that we have allowed a tax code that is incomprehensible to the average tax payer?
    7. Why is it that we have a continual military? Remember, this was one of the largest “evils” that the founders spoke about.
    8. Why is it necessary to have ANY federal LEO? It is not found in the constitution anywhere.
    9. How is it that the current SCOTUS exist without the entire country turning on them for rulings like allow the federal government to “regulate” your own personal garden for personal consumption.
    10. How is it that the current legal system is configured in such a way that judges refuse to allow themselves, DA’s, and LEO to be charged for crimes because “there are too many laws for one person to know”, yet they will prosecute a regular citizen? Isn’t that the same system the our founders fought against with the crown?
    11. How is it that SCOTUS can remove over 200 years of contract case law by requiring every citizen to enter into a contract with a company (insurance) under threat of loss of money (which is illegal)? I guess now, anyone can make you sign a contract with a gun pointed at your head and the contract is valid.

  • [3] August 19, 2014 at 11:54pm

    Some aspects that Glenn does not talk about, nor do I hear much here;

    - Glen talks about love and giving up, however, that does not correlate with the founders actions – for instance
    1. The founders had less than 18% tax – Did Glenn or anyone here vote for a rep. that said they would raise taxes? Can we poll the number of people across the country to find out if they wanted taxes raised?
    2. The founders started the war when the British came to confiscate the military grade firearms. Why is it that our current system does not recognize history and state that the founders wanted to restrict arms? Why is no one talking about it?
    3. Why is it that in our current system, LEO are taught to infringe upon the constitutional rights of the citizen. “Let the court work it out”, time and time again? Why is it that we as a people allow this to happen?
    4. Why is it that we are allowing the militarization of LEO? If you’ve seen the new pictures out from Ferguson, you will notice that they have removed the tactical gear.
    5. Why is it that LEO are allowed to arrest someone for the single charge of “resisting arrest” – when no arrest has been made for an actual crime (even suspected)? Why is it that many thousands of people are taken to jail and processed for that single charge, yet the charge is invariable dropped? Why are we letting this happen?


    Responses (2) +
  • [2] August 19, 2014 at 11:18pm

    “Voting System”? What, where two people who NEVER talk about increasing taxes and all sing happy songs for their “party” get into office based on the big spenders, and then increase taxes, keep same level of government or increase – no matter what the promise. That kind of “voting system”?

  • [5] August 19, 2014 at 3:43pm

    You are all talking as if the initial encounter was legit. Now, if the initial encounter was legit and all other facts that are provided are true, then yes, lethal force was authorized, however, that’s a pretty big if given all the facts so far. Remember, up to this point, the citizen has had no criminal record at the time. For anyone to go from none to full tilt is uncommon. I know if I was walking down the middle of my street and I didn’t hear a car coming (lawnmower, kids, etc.), and found it was a cop who tossed me against the hood, I would become in fear of my life. We do not know all the events yet and therefore I stand by the facts that a citizen is NOT a criminal until proven in court. I have seen way too many recent cases where officers escalated situations and MURDERED citizens (or attempted murder) and the officers where never charged. Remember, we even have officers lie on their official reports, then a video surfaces to prove the officer murdered the citizen.

    All I am saying is don’t be too quick to judge. Many here sound like as bad as the people trashing stores – a bunch of lynching mobs.

  • August 19, 2014 at 10:53am

    not “lunching” – lunging

  • [21] August 19, 2014 at 10:51am

    Even if the officers account is correct, it still does not provide for lethal force. If that where the case then a guy running at me or lunching at another provides lethal force. No double standard shall exist in the use of lethal force. If an officer be in fear of his life, then a citizen can do so as well. Be very careful how you view this action by anyone, either by state, or by citizen.

    Officers are not granted “extra” powers – they are not authorized to shoot “just because he beat me up!”. Can you imagine a world like that? “Because I was pistole whipped, I shot and killed him!”. Again, does not elevate to lethal force. Think of examples of how this could play out with citizens.

    Responses (11) +
  • [2] August 18, 2014 at 8:39pm


    You are correct.

  • August 18, 2014 at 6:03pm

    Lots of people get that wrong, he was talking about the fullfilment of the law. That, by his death he would destroy the temple as it was no longer necessary.

  • [1] August 18, 2014 at 2:20pm


    “Read the Missouri Constitution and State Statutes, the Gov had already declared a state of emergency, and they can tell people what to do (including the wannabe press) in situations such as these”

    Read the Constitution of the United States – Show me where inalienable rights can be taken away – by ANYONE. Further, find out what the word inalienable actually means, as you cannot suspend nor “give up” inalienable rights. They are able to take those off the street that are in the process of breaking the law by infringing upon other (utilizing PC alone), however, a “state of emergency” for a specific local where only a few people are causing issues is NOT a “state of emergency” that suspends inalienable rights.

    Next you will tell me that a bank robber of 2 years ago allow for a “state of emergency” to stop all traffic to “ask questions”. How about “state of emergency” you “must leave your house”. How about, “a store got robbed so we have a state of emergency, suspend the constitution”? No government has the authority to suspend inalienable rights, unless you believe that the government “gave” those rights to begin with? Be vary careful how you respond to this.

  • August 18, 2014 at 11:33am

    @Dgala, RJJinGadsden

    I don’t care what the reason or how many times they where asked by the police, police are not above the law and are not given the right to tell anyone what to do. Who do you think they are, you’re protector? You do realize that the term “to serve and protect” has no legal standing, right? A police officer can ask you anything he/she wants to, what they cannot do is state that they gave you “a lawful order” as they can only do that once they have made an arrest or held in brief detainment. There MUST be PC (probable cause) or, if in detainment, RS (reasonable suspicion that a crime has, is, or will be committed based on articulable facts in the officers experience, not mere hunch), anything else has no force of law. So, in the case of immature journalist that places themselves in harms way, have at it, police are not bound to “protect” the person who makes a bad decision. Do not even have to warn them.

    To RJJinGadsden

    Re: “So that the cops will have to once again respond” – Police have NO legal responsibility to respond to even an active shooter situation. So what makes you think that they “must respond” to a disturbance? Before you ask, here is the court cases (SCOTUS) that backup my claim:

    Warren v. District of Columbia and Castle Rock v. Gonzales

123 To page: Go