Wehrwolfen
Banned
- Joined
- May 11, 2013
- Messages
- 2,329
- Reaction score
- 402
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
By William A. Levinson
July 17, 2013
There is an aphorism to the effect that there is only a small difference between police and criminals, just as there is only a small difference between sheep dogs and wolves. It is that small difference, however, that distinguishes heroes from enemies of society. Sheep dogs and wolves are members of the same species, and both are physically and temperamentally capable of killing other animals. The key difference is, of course, that sheep dogs never harm the sheep they protect from the wolves. A police officer must, like the violent criminals he or she arrests, be similarly capable of handling a physical confrontation if he or she is to protect innocent people.
No civilized society can tolerate a sheep dog that turns on the sheep, or a police officer or prosecutor who uses his or her authority against innocent people for personal or political gain. This is why, for example, the U.S. Code includes a provision for "color of law" violations of civil rights. As stated excellently by the FBI:
U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies -- authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country. These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize property, to bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in certain situations.
This is why proven rogue prosecutors like Mike Nifong (Duke Lacrosse), and alleged rogue prosecutors Scott Harshbarger (Amiraults), Janet Reno (Grant Snowden), and Florida State Attorney Angela Corey (George Zimmerman), are far more dangerous to society than all but the most vicious criminals.
Read more: Articles: The Nifonging of George Zimmerman
Perhaps we can also include Eric Holder in the trio, for he too is seeking to persecute Zimmerman for something already found to be proven false. Hmm..., isn't Holder also associated with Janet (burn 'em up) Reno.
Nothing was 'proven false' at the Zimmerman trial.
The jury decided that there was not enough evidence to find Zimmerman guilty.
"An unjust law is no law at all." ~ St. Augustine.
There's self defense, and then there's the claim of self defense after instigating a situation that requires said defense in the first place.
Stand your ground or not...someone following me, first slowly in a vehicle, then on foot...is gonna have a confrontation. Period. If Martin should have ran away frightened, as seems to be the contention, then Zimmerman should have sat his ass in his car and waited on the police.
There's self defense, and then there's the claim of self defense after instigating a situation that requires said defense in the first place.
Stand your ground or not...someone following me, first slowly in a vehicle, then on foot...is gonna have a confrontation. Period. If Martin should have ran away frightened, as seems to be the contention, then Zimmerman should have sat his ass in his car and waited on the police.
No one is saying Martin could not confront Zimmerman. In fact if he had done it without the assaulting and battery, I would have backed him 100%. Unfortunately he took the law into his own hands, not Zimmerman, who did nothing illegal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?