User Profile: 2GodBeTheGlory


Member Since: September 02, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [8] April 24, 2015 at 5:25pm

    “Do as I say or I will kill you!”


  • April 24, 2015 at 5:19pm


    You are ignorant to law. There are two SCOTUS rulings that state that police do not even need to respond to a active shooter situation. Maybe you are unaware that the side arm is only for their safety. Maybe you are unaware that “to serve and protect” is just a tag line that has no bearing in law. Maybe you just don’t undersand that not one person can be held accountable for your safety. I really don’t know, however, I do know that LEO have no duty to protect anyone, under law.

    Now, LEO CAN, just like any citizen, kill a bad guy while bad guy is executing a crime and where lethal fource is used (or threat therein). I citizen, just like LEO CAN choose to help another, or even to take a bullet for another, however, they are not legally obligated to do so.

    Finally, do not misconstrude that an officer may loose their job for inaction as dictated within their job, however, they cannot be charged in court for said inaction.

    RE: “taught to not respect” – incorrect. I was taught to respect officers and do as they tell you. Always addres them as “yes officer” or “no sir”. Now, having said that, back in the 1960′s there was a SCOTUS case that allowed officers to lie to the public. I don’t trust a liar, how about you? I can’t trust a person that has proven to lie in court and on arrest reports. I can’t respect someone that is a proven liar.

  • April 24, 2015 at 3:41pm


    Maybe I’m missing something. After re-reading multiple times, I do not see any direct ad hominem attack. Maybe misdirected rant, however, not ad hominem.

    BTW: I recommend that everyone read history for themself. Know the law (the reasonable law), follow the law (reasonable law), protect themselves, and know what their rights are.

  • April 24, 2015 at 2:49pm

    That ad hominem attack is uncalled for. You might not like what someone does “taunting the cops”, however if officers followed the law, then there would be no problem, correct?

    Which is worse, a law abiding citizen who walks down the street with a fully visiable firearm or an officer who does not arrest another LEO for breaking the law?

  • April 24, 2015 at 2:45pm

    Re: “Their job is to protect the law-abiding citizen” –

    There you are wrong. LEO’s ONLY LAWFUL job, is to take someone into custody with PC, and delever that person to court, whereby a jury of their peers pass judgments upon them. That’s it. LEO have NO DUTY TO PROTECT. The ONLY person who has the duty and responsiblity to protect, is the individual.

    “You can’t understand what the job of police is” – Stupid statement. I can and do understand. I may not know the process and procedures used, however, I, as a citizen, have a duty and responsiblity to know what the job is. I also have a duty and responsiblity to understand my rights and what an employee of the state can and cannot do.

    RE: “feel safe” – Ben Franklin made a statement about “feeling safe” – I recommend you look it up.

    RE: “bad apples” – which one is worse, the officer that commits a crime, or the officer that wittnesses a crime by another LEO and does nothing?

    Responses (4) +
  • [1] April 24, 2015 at 2:38pm

    Glad to know that you don’t care about the surpreme law of the land, Constitution, only what is easy for LEO.

    It’s easy to grow old, but it’s difficult to grow up.

  • [4] April 24, 2015 at 2:33pm

    My response to your pitiful assertion; It’s been just over two years since 8 LAPD officer fired over 100 rounds into a pick-up truck when NO PC nor RS existed even for a stop/detainment, yet not one officer fired much less charged. Each officer admitted that they did not identify their targets. Two innocent citizens who where delivering newspapers where shot repeatedly.

    “You are GUILTY until proven innocent” – unless your LEO and therefore of the “protected class”. Answer this question, what would you EXPECT to happen if a citizen fired over 100 rounds into a vehicle without cause (remembering that the use of lethal force is the same for both citizen and LEO)?

  • [2] April 24, 2015 at 2:25pm

    Re: “respect for the laws” – yes

    Re: “resist arrest and you encounter police use of force to make you comply”

    In that one statement, you sum up part of the problem, for when an officer disregards the consitution (“for it is too restricting and prevents us from doing our job”) and illegally places someone in fear of their life, the citizen has the same right as anyone else in using self defense. For instance, when LEO pulls out his sidearm and points it at a citizen for having a rifle on their back, in the middle of a sunny saturday just because “I don’t know you” when no other factors exists – the officer just placed the citizen and every citizen nearby in fear of their life. Furhter, since the rules of lethal force being equal, allow citizens to use the same force as the state in self defense of themselves or others.

    Bottom line, LEO are not above the law, however, they will not prosecute themselves nor will the prosecuters/judges hold LEO to equal or greater standard than the citizens of the state. This unequal prosecution of law is one of the reasons listed in the Declaration of Independence; “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.”, “He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.”, “For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States” and others.

  • April 23, 2015 at 10:27am

    Stop using the phrase “illegal guns” for NO firearm is “illegal”. There are people who posses firearms illegally, but the firearm, itself, is not illegal. Quit spouting the anti-firearm hate. It’s allot like calling a plant illegal when it naturally grows in a specific area. God didn’t make anything “illegal”, however certain uses, the ACTION is illegal, i.e., at the time of Noah, eating pig was a sin, but not the pig, in of itself.

    Responses (1) +
  • [6] April 23, 2015 at 10:16am

    Hmmm, and no one else who was with Saul (at the time) have the same blindness? Many people do not know that people of the day rarely traveled by themselves due to the high number of robbers that lay in wait. Thus travel was done in large groups for protection in numbers. Further, we know from the Bible that Saul went out with his papers with other men (see Acts 9:7 “And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.”)

    This person did not use “science” for he did not obtain all the available information. Based upon this published work by William Hartmann with the Planetary Science Institute, I can surmise that he believes in global warming and rape victims soiling themselves.

  • April 22, 2015 at 10:55am

    @Soul Leister,

    Re: “Why assume…”

    Not an assumption as you clearly stated that “he was runing because he was illegally armed”

    Again, the state cannot take the default stance that a person is a felon in possession of a firearm. The officer had no way in knowing that the person was armed before the stop / detainment. The only articulable facts before the stop / detainment is “an area known to have drugs” (show me one are that is not – at one point in time or another), “a look”, and “he ran”. Sorry, those facts do not give RS for a stop / detainment. Thus the reason why the ends do not justify the means.

    Re: “because the police can and will” – Is this why less and 20% of all violent crimes will every go before a judge?

  • April 22, 2015 at 9:44am

    @Soul Leister

    Yet the state cannot take the default stance that all citizens are armed criminals. The ends do not justify the means.

  • [1] April 22, 2015 at 9:32am


    Re: “Amazing how many people know nothing about being a police officer”

    It’s amazing how many police officers do not understand their place. The ONLY lawful job that an officer has is, upon PC, to take those that HAVE infringed upon another to court to be judged by a jury of his/her peers. LEO are not a preventer of crime, nor are they supposed to be revenue generators. They are not there to “serve and protect” (a lie that has no foundation in law).

    Understand your place or suffer the consequences of your illegal actions.

    1775 all over again.

  • April 21, 2015 at 10:44am

    Sorry, should be ssh via certificate.

  • [-1] April 21, 2015 at 10:26am

    Further, force inbound connection to ssl via certificate, then port forward whatever you need access (with strong PW). Use only open source code for encrypted connections, preventing the closed source problem of “trust us, we never make a mistake” (then when one is found, no light is ever shown on it – see MS VPN problem). Yes, open source has been hacked, however, remember that anyone and everyone can go line by line through the code to reveal potential problems – this is a good thing for the problems see’s the light of day and get fixed.

    Responses (3) +
  • [11] April 20, 2015 at 6:53pm


    It is called an abnormality, or to put it succinctly, abnormal. Now, abnormal does not make one less of a person, however, it does not require “education” for an entire school. Educating an affected class would be appropriate upon a doctors notice, however, inappropriate for a choice – after all, it is abnormal.

    I love all, just not all choices.

  • [39] April 20, 2015 at 10:32am

    This is what “Honor thy Father and thy Mother” means. Not necessarily to follow, but to honor.

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] April 20, 2015 at 10:26am

    I almost missed this gem from “Jim S” that I must respond to for everyone; “Yes a law is constitutional,if enacted within the state or Federal procedure,until ruled unconstitutional”

    Let’s thank about that for a minute; Through a series of bad choices, a governor president appoints horrible judges. Over time, the “good” judges leave, thereby placing the “bad judges” as the final “protection” of said constitution. Then, through manipulation, the “representatives” come up with a law that is clearly against the constitution – then when challenged, the judges side with the state. Think it’s “never going to happen” – think “the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms, s h a l l n o t b e I n f r I n g e d”. Yes, it’s already happened.

    Now, lets look at it a different way, by “Jim S” view, this country should never have started for the “shot heard round the world” was singularly caused by the “lawful order” of the state to destroy the military grade firearms the citizens had amassed, trained, and maintained at Concord and Lexington. The “1 if by land, 2 if by sea” early warning was to meet the authorized LEO on the battle field, not to run and hide for the citizens refused the law by their government after all other peaceful attempts failed to reign in a government that had run amok.

    “The law says so, so it must be right until challended” – said the idiot

  • [1] April 20, 2015 at 9:39am


    You are correct in your assertion. “Jim S” would have you believe that an “informant” or a “tip” would give PC for a warrant and actions like this by the state. If that where true, one “anonymous” LEO could create a “tip” to obtain a warrant to enter every single home and perform a “lawful” search, just like the actions here. Think about the ramifications of such “lawful” actions; “I don’t like my ex-boss/spouse so I’m going to send a tip about explosives being made at his business and home” – whereupon a no-knock raid is performed that cause the loss of life of a child. Or, “I don’t like the driver that I feel goes too slow so I will provide an anonymous tip that I observed the person drinking a bear while driving.”. Before “Jim S” attempts to swipe away as impossible, I would lead you to a northern Virginia (near D.C.) case where LEO sent SWAT, FIRST, for an ex-girlfriends call stating that the “perp” was at home, alone, with a gun – YES, the state killed him, no weapons found.

    Just think what a child could do who was just punished by his parents that took away his x-box for a week?

  • April 20, 2015 at 8:52am

    @Jim S,

    That’s a good bully tactic, when you cannot respond to the illegal actions by the officers on the video, use ad hominem in an attempt to shut down an argument.

    Your actions will be judged for you are the same type of individual that the founders dealt with in 1775. As it appears that you do not care about history, you are doomed to repeat it. May your god, the state, continue to keep you in it’s bosom, for you have failed in the duty of every citizen.

    I cease to throw pearls before the swine.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love