User Profile: 2GodBeTheGlory


Member Since: September 02, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • December 20, 2014 at 12:06pm


    “It sounds like you are thinking as if this guy was an employee instead of owner.” – no. The difference between a phone number, checking account, or emplyee pat prossesor and a FB account is simply in the contract. In this case, the contract between FB and the INDIVIDUAL is clear, where both parties agreed to said contract. This becomes a legal binding contract document that the judge would then have to have legal standing to break the said contract. Now, because he is a local judge, he does not have the authority to nullify a contract beyond the state.

    This is about contract law, not standard business transfer.

  • December 19, 2014 at 6:33pm


    The problem with the judges order is that it’s illegal as it goes against the contract that was agreed to betweeen the 2 parties (in this case the individual and FB). Since the contract states that a person may not release their FB account to anyone, then the judge is demanding an act against contract – which he cannot do as he cannot infringe upon another contract unless he finds that contract null and void (at his stage, he is not authorized across state lines to do so).

  • [6] December 8, 2014 at 1:34pm

    Now if we could have that many people act like Christ….

    Responses (2) +
  • [10] December 3, 2014 at 5:16pm

    If he had a license then the person that refused to perform the check committed a felony by not disclossing that information to the judge who authorized the warrant. Judges do not like it when someone misleads them, or do not disclose all the evidence. Once proven that the warrant was based on inacturrate information, then protections are removed.

    Responses (1) +
  • [12] December 2, 2014 at 10:34am


    It is most departments policy to obtain ID information on ANY and ALL encounters – including consensual. Now, in my state, police cannot compel ID during an RS stop/detainment – only upon arrest. Therefore, LEO cannot use the refusal to ID as fact that a crime is committed and then perform a chokehold on the citizen. The individual was already detained, so what was the point of the chokehold other than to illegally use force of the state to compel a citizen to give up their rights?

  • [4] December 1, 2014 at 6:13pm

    Hooooo! ouchhhhh, you made me laugh so hard I spewed my……..wait for it…….coffee!

    radar jammed!

  • [1] December 1, 2014 at 5:13pm


    “Talking without someone” – not illegal, nor did I intimate such. Detainment without RS is illegal – there is a difference. If you read the bottom of the article, they state that this was a Terry Stop. Terry stops must conform to the parameters set forth by SCOTUS in the case Terry vs. Ohio. To this, I base my comments.

    BTW: A call stating no crime does NOT provide RS (reasonable suspicion) for a stop/detainment.

    Re: “left a murder scene” – law does not play “what if”. It’s a stupid and dangerous game that our founders talked against. Law is not to prevent crime, it forces those that commit harm against another to answer for said crime. If you still believe that law prevents crime, then let’s look at one of the oldest laws on the books – murder. Hmm…. yep, still have it today.

  • [-2] December 1, 2014 at 3:52pm


    “Where does it say he detained him?”

    At the bottom of the article.

    You might want to read the entire article before posting.

  • [3] December 1, 2014 at 3:45pm

    I was responding to the actual article, not the video. Read the beginning of my post.
    re: “From what I saw there was no frisk which is necessary for s terry stop” – Incorrect. Please read the actual SCOTUS ruling – not some lawyer memo. A Terry stop does allow an officer to perform an over the clothes pat down, however, the bigger issue is in the detainment of a free citizen where the officer must have articulable facts (in HIS/HER experience) that a crime has, is, or will be committed (specific crime), not “mere hunch” (i.e. RS – Reasonable Suspicion). A Terry stop does not authorize going into pockets nor under clothes. Further, the courts have ruled that a Terry stop be brief (15 to 20 minutes) to ascertain crime/no crime, however, the citizen is under no obligation to speak with LEO under ANY circumstance (including arrest)– nor can an officer use the invoking of any of the Bill of Rights as additional fact that a crime has, is, or will be committed. In some states, citizen must provide name, address, age, and SSN upon detainment (not all), however, you do not have to speak it, nor provide an ID (unless your driving). You can just right it down.

  • [5] December 1, 2014 at 1:43pm


    Although funny, not legal. LEO can, like anyone else, can knock on your door for a “welfare check” – however, you are not legally bound to interact or converse.

  • [9] December 1, 2014 at 1:38pm

    You are absolutely correct. Further, just like any other citizen, LEO can be ignored completely. It is only upon detainment does everything change.

  • [6] December 1, 2014 at 1:32pm

    From the voted-down from my previous post, it is apparent that at least one person does not agree with the law, nor the 4th amendment. Maybe you can reply to show why you are against the 4th amendment…?????

    Responses (1) +
  • [7] December 1, 2014 at 1:27pm

    Hmmm, no. An officer cannot detain someone based on a “suspicious person” claim. There must be articulable facts that a crime has, is, or will be committed – in the individual officers experience. The burden is upon the state (the officer) to prove that they articulable facts. If you believe in the contrary, then under that LEO is allowed to lie to citizens (since the 1960′s) and therefor could say that he got an anonymous tip (which is what the courts view 911 calls as) and proceed to stop/detain everyone.
    Now, if there where an actual claim made by a witness to a crime (car going 90 in a 25) then the officer can stop/detain (briefly). If the officer did not witness the crime and the witness was anonymous, then the officer must let the citizen go – unless the officer can trip-up the citizen into admitting guilt to a crime.

  • [11] December 1, 2014 at 1:12pm

    Hmmm, no. An officer cannot detain someone based on a “suspicious person” claim. There must be articulable facts that a crime has, is, or will be committed – in the individual officers experience.

    Responses (3) +
  • [6] December 1, 2014 at 1:11pm

    Hmmm, no. An officer cannot detain someone based on a “suspicious person” claim. There must be articulable facts that a crime has, is, or will be committed – in the individual officers experience.

    Responses (2) +
  • [16] December 1, 2014 at 1:09pm

    Re: “Cornell University Law School defines this type of police stop, called a Terry stop”

    No. The actual ruling is from Terry vs. Ohio which was ruled on by SCOTUS. Further, the individual officer MUST be able to point to “articulable facts” of a specific crime that has, is, or will be committed – “mere hunch” does not authorized a stop/detainment. So, the officer can ASK what a person is doing, however, the citizen has every right to continue on their way without addressing the officer question.

    If one where to state that the officer had RS (reasonable suspicion) based on a “suspicious person” call then understand that the state would be able to detain EVERYONE who had hands in their pockets.

    Responses (1) +
  • [96] December 1, 2014 at 12:56pm

    It’s very simple, God said not to do it (go after spirits), so I’m not going to. I would recommend that anyone who wishes to follow God not to have anything to do with the “spirit world”. We are to be concerned with our own spirit and the holy spirit (one that can be made pure and one that is pure) – that’s it.

    Responses (2) +
  • [9] November 24, 2014 at 8:41am

    “shot herself in the head accidentally” – No, she either was intentional or through neglect. Todays firearms do not just “go off” all by themselves. No different than a person that turns down a one-way street the wrong way and kills a van full of kids.

  • [119] November 23, 2014 at 8:15pm

    I think Mike should take on the most dirty Job…..President of the U.S.!

    Responses (2) +
  • November 20, 2014 at 5:10pm

    I want to understand your position; are you stating that my decision to follow my convictions in raising my children up in the way that they should go is morally wrong (I do “indoctrinate” using the definition “1” of “indoctrinate” found in Merriam-Webster)? Is it because I teach what the Hold Bible says is right and what is wrong (that may or may not conform to your belief/lack of belief system)? I do teach other religions and explain their fallacies as I see them and as the Holy Bible reveals, so are you stating that this type of “indoctrination” is flawed and morally wrong?
    Now, my Bible dictates that God has no grandchildren, so that the children he has charged me with, I am bound to raise up for them to follow God, not me, you, the church, nor the state. They are free to pursuit other religions or none at all, however, that is not BECAUSE of the teaching I instill, but their CHOICE to reject God.

123 To page: Go