Maryland's Police State Is Alive and Well
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
desertrat
0_0
The closing paragraph just about says it all.
willie
Well-Known Member
If I decided to barricade myself, I'd rather deal with the State or County Police than have the FBI involved.
Basically, the MSP can converge on your home, shoot you to death, and tough #### for you. That is outrageous and no better than some freakin' third world hell hole.
PulseStart
Go Bills!
Ruby Ridge....
In Maryland?
In Maryland?
foodcritic
New Member
We have been over this so many times....POLICE are REQUIRED(by law) to take people into custody if they are a danger to themselves OR OR OR others. WHY IS THAT SO COMPLICATED OR DEVIOUS...this is probably based on the study of people with mental conditions and their ability to harm others and themselves.
The fact that this guy made threats to end his life, discharged weapons at the residence only bolsters the case of the police. This is the law. NOW, the law can change but allowing people to kill themselves is generally frowned on.
If someone wants to kill theirself, it's not the government's business. The argument was that the guy could've been a danger to others, but there was no indication of that nor did he threaten it.
Guy wanted to kill himself, so the cops came in and did it for him. BRILLIANT!
If someone wants to kill theirself, it's not the government's business. The argument was that the guy could've been a danger to others, but there was no indication of that nor did he threaten it.
Guy wanted to kill himself, so the cops came in and did it for him. BRILLIANT!
I wouldn't believe what a blogger who is anti-government has to say.
A couple of things that are forgotten here is the family called the police to check on Mr. Dean. At the same time, there was information provided to the police such as Dean had threatened to burn the house down, and had pointed a gun at an uncle. When the police arrived, he pointed a gun at them and told them to leave. The aforementioned are crimes. These facts are lost on many because they become focused on the final outcome. While the final outcome was tragic for all involved, the police, Mr. Dean and the Dean family, it was Mr. Dean who caused said outcome. So now so many people are upset he is dead, at the hands of a police sniper, who came out on that Christmas night and was forced to do something nobody wants to do. Again, Jamie Dean is to blame for this, nobody else.
Let me ask this hypothetical. The police arrive there and then leave because he says he wants to kill himself. He then decides, he is already angry at his wife, and had threatened to burn the house down, so he goes there and kills his wife. Are we still going to say the police should have left a drunk, suicidal violent person alone?
PulseStart
Go Bills!
If someone wants to kill theirself, it's not the government's business. The argument was that the guy could've been a danger to others, but there was no indication of that nor did he threaten it.
Guy wanted to kill himself, so the cops came in and did it for him. BRILLIANT!
So are the cops and him happy now?
Where is the original thread on this? I tried to find it and got lazy but if I remember correctly, a family member called the police requesting a 'check the welfare.' He had a gun, stomping through the house and shooting it. He shot at the police BEFORE they shot him!
I am going against the grain and saying I agree with the ruling. I believe the officers did their jobs that night. They responded to a call.
I am going against the grain and saying I agree with the ruling. I believe the officers did their jobs that night. They responded to a call.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Here's a non-hypothetical; where do you draw the line? Can the state then come in and arrest everyone for getting too rowdy watching a football game citing statistics that show football and beer lead to domestic violence?
Should the state come in, once a month, and arrest all the women for a week, as a danger to themselves and others?
The wife, in your scenario, or future wives, could then be shown to not be capable of discerning when it is time to leave and, thus, the state can argue it is for their own good to remove them from the home. The kids, too.
In New Orleans, in the middle of a catastrophe, cops were going around and DISARMING folks. Disarming them. For what? Their own good? That's insane.
Have you seen the video of them physically disarming the old lady?
Are there any limits on government power anymore?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I don't expect it would take you very long to list 10-20 laws that are or should be 'beyond' belief.
Pete
Repete
The 11th Ammendment specifically says " it bars federal law suits against states by citizens of "another" state or "foreign" state". It say nothing about citizens of THAT state. How could the courts look at THE text and exclude redress in the courts against their state?
Does this also kill a suit in the state court?
Tilted
..
It's a pretty well settled point of law that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear suits brought by citizens against their own state. The Supreme Court found as such in Hans v Louisiana (1890).
Tilted
..
And no, that doesn't kill a state action - but I believe there has already been a state action in this case, which was unsuccessful.
And, as much as I'd like to, I think I'll refrain from commenting on this particular case, as I have some knowledge of it, and probably some bias as well.
Pete
Repete
But isn't the state courts presiding over a law suit against the state itself a conflict of interest of epic proportions?
kom526
They call me ... Sarcasmo
THIS is the part that people need to be focused on not the shot that was taken.
Tilted
..
One could certainly argue that. I don't know if you've ever heard the expression, 'You can't sue the king' - but it refers to a long held doctrine of common law whereby governmental bodies (including states) are immune to civil (or criminal) liability, except in circumstances where they have affirmatively waived that immunity (such as by legislation).
So, generally speaking, you can't sue the king. This isn't something specific to Maryland though, it's a legal doctrine which dates back centuries - before this nation even existed.
Edit: I'm referring to actions brought by their citizens, not from outside entities.
Last edited: