Looting Takes Over Buffalo, New York

[Paul Popinjay]

Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.

No problem. Call a cop.

[Irish Mike]

On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 12:38:37 AM UTC-5, paulpo...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
>
> No problem. Call a cop.

The chance the Cops would ever catch and arrest these looters is
slim and none - and slim left town! But even if a miracle did occur
and the Cops did arrest one of these looters, the Democrat
Judges would give him "no cash bail" and have the looter back out
on the street in a couple of hours anyway.

Irish Mike

[VegasJerry]

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 9:38:37 PM UTC-8, paulpo...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
>
> No problem. Call a cop.

But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?

[da pickle]

risky says just shoot em ... what would you do?

[Splashie]

Notice how Jerry made the subtext of risky’s argument clear? “what if the looter is black” indeed.

Michael

[RichD]

On December 28, VegasJerry wrote:
>> Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
>> No problem. Call a cop.
>
> But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?

Put him in a jail without electricity. Or phone service. Then let him try to call
his bail bondsman or lawyer -

What did arrestees do, in the days before telephones?
(we might ask, how did humans survive for 100000 years without electricity,
but that's another ball of thread)

--
Rich

[BillB]

The cop should use a continuum of escalating force that meets the legal test of objective reasonableness, up to but not including deadly force (unless the cop has probable cause to reasonably believe the suspect poses a significant and imminent threat of serious bodily harm to law enforcement officers or the public). Once the limit of objective reasonableness is met (and no significant and imminent threat of serious bodily harm is present) he or she should just let the suspect escape. No biggie...it's only a TV, right?

[risky biz]

On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 6:39:59 AM UTC-8, Splashie wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 8:02:34 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
> > On 12/28/2022 9:52 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 9:38:37 PM UTC-8, paulpo...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > >> Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
> > >>
> > >> No problem. Call a cop.
> > >

> > > But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?
> > risky says just shoot em ... what would you do?

~ Notice how Jerry made the subtext of risky’s argument clear? “what if the looter is black” indeed.
>
> Michael


'Subtext' being your dishonest way of pretending I said what you want me to say because your argument against what I do say is completely inadequate? How pathetic.

Jerry's specification of the arrestee being black is 100% appropriate because it is arrests of black criminals that place the police officer at risk of being railroaded by a kangaroo court.

[risky biz]

On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 8:02:34 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:

> On 12/28/2022 9:52 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 9:38:37 PM UTC-8, paulpo...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> >> Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
> >>
> >> No problem. Call a cop.
> >
> > But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?

~ risky says just shoot em ... what would you do?


Please stop pretending I said things that I never said.

[risky biz]

On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 11:56:10 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 7:52:19 AM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 9:38:37 PM UTC-8, paulpo...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > > Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
> > >
> > > No problem. Call a cop.
>
> > But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?

~ The cop should use a continuum of escalating force that meets the legal test of objective reasonableness, up to but not including deadly force (unless the cop has probable cause to reasonably believe the suspect poses a significant and imminent threat of serious bodily harm to law enforcement officers or the public). Once the limit of objective reasonableness is met (and no significant and imminent threat of serious bodily harm is present) he or she should just let the suspect escape. No biggie...it's only a TV, right?


There's zero chance that your IQ is not lower than that of anyone else who posts here.

Right .. no biggie. Every criminal in town is going to be back the next night for their free TV. Jesus, what a stupid shit.

[BillB]

I simply restated US law. Now that you know that's the law, I guess you must think the Supreme Court justices who made it had IQs lower than anyone else who posts here? Yes, they placed the value of a human life above the value of a TV, or even a whole rack of them. Hell, even a whole truckload of them! Crazy bastards, eh? We already know know that you place the value of a black man's life at something less than $20. That must be your self-proclaimed high IQ operating at a level that few of us normal people can understand.

[VegasJerry]

On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 11:17:42 AM UTC-8, RichD wrote:
> On December 28, VegasJerry wrote:
> >> Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
> >> No problem. Call a cop.
> >
> > But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?

.

> Put him in a jail without electricity.

But he refused to be arrested (resisted arrest). What should the cop do?

[VegasJerry]

On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 11:56:10 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 7:52:19 AM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 9:38:37 PM UTC-8, paulpo...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > > Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
> > >
> > > No problem. Call a cop.
>
> > But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?

.

> The cop should use a continuum of escalating force that meets the legal test of objective
> reasonableness, up to but not including deadly force

.

Offer Chauvin tried that, as did all the other “White cop arrests black perp.’ Didn’t work.
Cop was arrested. Care to try again?

.
.

[Splashie]

On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 11:17:42 AM UTC-8, RichD wrote:

> On December 28, VegasJerry wrote:
> >> Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
> >> No problem. Call a cop.
> >
> > But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?
> Put him in a jail without electricity. Or phone service. Then let him try to call
> his bail bondsman or lawyer -

Why do you hate the Constitution?

Michael

[risky biz]

On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 12:31:50 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 12:17:07 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 11:56:10 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 7:52:19 AM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:
> > > > On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 9:38:37 PM UTC-8, paulpo...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > > > > Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
> > > > >
> > > > > No problem. Call a cop.
> > >
> > > > But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?
> > ~ The cop should use a continuum of escalating force that meets the legal test of objective reasonableness, up to but not including deadly force (unless the cop has probable cause to reasonably believe the suspect poses a significant and imminent threat of serious bodily harm to law enforcement officers or the public). Once the limit of objective reasonableness is met (and no significant and imminent threat of serious bodily harm is present) he or she should just let the suspect escape. No biggie...it's only a TV, right?
> >
> >
> > There's zero chance that your IQ is not lower than that of anyone else who posts here.
> >
> > Right .. no biggie. Every criminal in town is going to be back the next night for their free TV. Jesus, what a stupid shit.

~ I simply restated US law. Now that you know that's the law, I guess you must think the Supreme Court justices who made it had IQs lower than anyone else who posts here?


Which wouldn't apply once martial law is declared. You must have a brain the size of a peanut. Do you never tire of making a fool of yourself?

[risky biz]

~ Why do you hate the Constitution?
>
> Michael


Does the U.S. Constitution specify that incarcerated criminals be provided electricity and telephone service? Or are you just as much of a blabbermouth as the Canadian blabbermouth?

[BillB]

On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 6:18:25 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:

> ~ I simply restated US law. Now that you know that's the law, I guess you must think the Supreme Court justices who made it had IQs lower than anyone else who posts here?
>
>
> Which wouldn't apply once martial law is declared. You must have a brain the size of a peanut. Do you never tire of making a fool of yourself?

Let's *start* with the fact that martial law was not declared in Buffalo and therefore not relevant to Jerry's question. Your response is not consistent with your self-declared high IQ. If this were a law school exam question you would get an "F". Always avoid making irrelevant comments like the plague. They are a sure sign you are flailing and don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

[risky biz]

On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:07:30 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 6:18:25 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
>
> > ~ I simply restated US law. Now that you know that's the law, I guess you must think the Supreme Court justices who made it had IQs lower than anyone else who posts here?
> >
> >
> > Which wouldn't apply once martial law is declared. You must have a brain the size of a peanut. Do you never tire of making a fool of yourself?

~ Let's *start* with the fact that martial law was not declared in Buffalo


This is exactly why, with asshole retards like you making municipal decisions, every criminal in town will be back the next night to get their free television and murder and rob to their heart's content. Because for you, criminals are far more sympathetic than honest citizens.


~ therefore not relevant to Jerry's question. Your response is not consistent with your self-declared high IQ. If this were a law school exam question you would get an "F". Always avoid making irrelevant comments like the plague. They are a sure sign you are flailing and don't know what the fuck you are talking about.


It's 100% relevant regardless of the obvious fact that you are too slow-witted to stay out of your own way.

If municipal authorities are too irresponsible to declare martial law they deserve what they get. Any business owner needs to ask himself why he is located in a jurisdiction that chooses to not enforce the law. And that is exactly why large, 'liberal' cities are recognized as shitholes to avoid.

[BillB]

Jerry asked what a cop should do if he encountered a black looter during the Buffalo snowstorm and he or she resisted arrest. Martial law was not declared during the Buffalo snowstorm (and it would have been ridiculous if it was), therefore your comment about martial law was irrelevant (and simultaneously ridiculous). Your failure to understand the concept of irrelevance is not consistent with your self-declared high IQ.

By the way, since when do municipal authorities have the authority to declare martial law? That's news to me.

[Splashie]

It specifies that they have the right to an attorney, a speedy and public trial, and prohibits cruel and unusual punishment including excessive bail. Attempting to deprive inmates the right to contact a bail bondsman or attorney through normal means is an obviously unconstitutional deprivation of due process.

Michael

[VegasJerry]

.

And still doesn't answer my question:

[risky biz]

On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 3:17:59 PM UTC-8, Splashie wrote:
> On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 6:22:15 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 2:40:01 PM UTC-8, Splashie wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 11:17:42 AM UTC-8, RichD wrote:
> > > > On December 28, VegasJerry wrote:
> > > > >> Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
> > > > >> No problem. Call a cop.
> > > > >
> > > > > But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?
> > > > Put him in a jail without electricity. Or phone service. Then let him try to call
> > > > his bail bondsman or lawyer -
> > ~ Why do you hate the Constitution?
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> >

> > Does the U.S. Constitution specify that incarcerated criminals be provided electricity and telephone service? Or are you just as much of a blabbermouth as the Canadian blabbermouth?

~ It specifies that they have the right to an attorney,


Sorry. Did you skip over the part of the Constitution that specifies an arrestee has the right to contact an attorney by telephone? Where's that?


~ a speedy and public trial, and prohibits cruel and unusual punishment including excessive bail. Attempting to deprive inmates the right to contact a bail bondsman or attorney through normal means is an obviously unconstitutional deprivation of due process.
>
> Michael


When did contacting an attorney by any means other than telephone become 'not normal'? If an arrestee states that he wants to be represented by 'X' attorney law enforcement authorities are constitutionally obligated to inform the attorney. Telephones for use by arrestees are made available as a benefit to the police, not the arrestee, because it saves them the trouble.

And you've obviously never set foot in a lockup entrance. One of the CHALLENGES for the police is keeping out the bail bondsmen and attorney bird dogs.

[risky biz]

On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:33:46 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:23:57 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:07:30 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 6:18:25 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > >
> > > > ~ I simply restated US law. Now that you know that's the law, I guess you must think the Supreme Court justices who made it had IQs lower than anyone else who posts here?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Which wouldn't apply once martial law is declared. You must have a brain the size of a peanut. Do you never tire of making a fool of yourself?
> > ~ Let's *start* with the fact that martial law was not declared in Buffalo
> >
> >
> > This is exactly why, with asshole retards like you making municipal decisions, every criminal in town will be back the next night to get their free television and murder and rob to their heart's content. Because for you, criminals are far more sympathetic than honest citizens.
> >
> >
> > ~ therefore not relevant to Jerry's question. Your response is not consistent with your self-declared high IQ. If this were a law school exam question you would get an "F". Always avoid making irrelevant comments like the plague. They are a sure sign you are flailing and don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
> >
> >
> > It's 100% relevant regardless of the obvious fact that you are too slow-witted to stay out of your own way.
> >
> > If municipal authorities are too irresponsible to declare martial law they deserve what they get. Any business owner needs to ask himself why he is located in a jurisdiction that chooses to not enforce the law. And that is exactly why large, 'liberal' cities are recognized as shitholes to avoid.

~ Jerry asked what a cop should do if he encountered a black looter during the Buffalo snowstorm and he or she resisted arrest. Martial law was not declared during the Buffalo snowstorm (and it would have been ridiculous if it was), therefore your comment about martial law was irrelevant (and simultaneously ridiculous). Your failure to understand the concept of irrelevance is not consistent with your self-declared high IQ.


Look, it's quite obvious that you're feeling pretty stupid for blabbing as you did that police, as a policy, should allow criminals to get away with looting. You recognized that course of action would only encourage more looting when I MADE you think of it. Your tongue obviously weighs more than your brain.

And now you're straining mightily to convince someone that it's forbidden to discuss martial law in the context of looting because someone else didn't use the words 'martial law' in their comment? Do you not think this is recognized as your typical patented diversion from your original stupidity?


~ By the way, since when do municipal authorities have the authority to declare martial law? That's news to me.


Then you obviously know very little about the common law. And that is not a surprise.

[BillB]

On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 5:14:03 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:33:46 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:23:57 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:07:30 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 6:18:25 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > ~ I simply restated US law. Now that you know that's the law, I guess you must think the Supreme Court justices who made it had IQs lower than anyone else who posts here?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Which wouldn't apply once martial law is declared. You must have a brain the size of a peanut. Do you never tire of making a fool of yourself?
> > > ~ Let's *start* with the fact that martial law was not declared in Buffalo
> > >
> > >
> > > This is exactly why, with asshole retards like you making municipal decisions, every criminal in town will be back the next night to get their free television and murder and rob to their heart's content. Because for you, criminals are far more sympathetic than honest citizens.
> > >
> > >
> > > ~ therefore not relevant to Jerry's question. Your response is not consistent with your self-declared high IQ. If this were a law school exam question you would get an "F". Always avoid making irrelevant comments like the plague. They are a sure sign you are flailing and don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
> > >
> > >
> > > It's 100% relevant regardless of the obvious fact that you are too slow-witted to stay out of your own way.
> > >
> > > If municipal authorities are too irresponsible to declare martial law they deserve what they get. Any business owner needs to ask himself why he is located in a jurisdiction that chooses to not enforce the law. And that is exactly why large, 'liberal' cities are recognized as shitholes to avoid.
> ~ Jerry asked what a cop should do if he encountered a black looter during the Buffalo snowstorm and he or she resisted arrest. Martial law was not declared during the Buffalo snowstorm (and it would have been ridiculous if it was), therefore your comment about martial law was irrelevant (and simultaneously ridiculous). Your failure to understand the concept of irrelevance is not consistent with your self-declared high IQ.
>
>
> Look, it's quite obvious that you're feeling pretty stupid for blabbing as you did that police, as a policy, should allow criminals to get away with looting. You >recognized that course of action would only encourage more looting when I MADE you think of it. Your tongue obviously weighs more than your brain.

I did not say anything about "police policy." I summarized the constitutional law of the United States with respect to the use of lethal force by law enforcement. Do you understand that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States and that it far outranks "police policy?" It appears you do not.

> And now you're straining mightily to convince someone that it's forbidden to discuss martial law in the context of looting because someone else didn't use the words 'martial law' in their comment? Do you not think this is recognized as your typical patented diversion from your original stupidity?
>

You jumped in like the comical fool you are and said the answer I provided to Jerry's question, which was well established constitutional law with respect to lethal force by law enforcement, showed "there's zero chance that your IQ is not lower than that of anyone else who posts here." Martial law was not part of the fact scenario behind Jerry's question, therefore it is irrelevant to his question. The fact that you STILL can't see that is a reflection of your low IQ. And the idea that New York would declare martial law because a few stores were broken into during a snowstorm is well beyond moronic, even for you.

> ~ By the way, since when do municipal authorities have the authority to declare martial law? That's news to me.
>
>
> Then you obviously know very little about the common law. And that is not a surprise.

I have a Juris Doctor from a common law jurisdiction and I have been studying Canadian and US comparative law for over 30 years. The fact that you think you know more about common law than I do is entirely consistent with your delusion that you have a high IQ. That said, having a JD doesn't mean I know everything. So show me and this group the common law decision(s) that support your contention that "municipal authorities" have the authority to declare martial law. I am confident in saying no such common law exists. While you are at it, show me the legal authorities you rely upon to believe a citizen's constitutional rights are suspended during martial law, beyond what is expressly provided for in the Constitution of the United States.

[risky biz]

On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 7:06:55 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 5:14:03 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:33:46 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:23:57 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:07:30 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 6:18:25 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > ~ I simply restated US law. Now that you know that's the law, I guess you must think the Supreme Court justices who made it had IQs lower than anyone else who posts here?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which wouldn't apply once martial law is declared. You must have a brain the size of a peanut. Do you never tire of making a fool of yourself?
> > > > ~ Let's *start* with the fact that martial law was not declared in Buffalo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is exactly why, with asshole retards like you making municipal decisions, every criminal in town will be back the next night to get their free television and murder and rob to their heart's content. Because for you, criminals are far more sympathetic than honest citizens.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ~ therefore not relevant to Jerry's question. Your response is not consistent with your self-declared high IQ. If this were a law school exam question you would get an "F". Always avoid making irrelevant comments like the plague. They are a sure sign you are flailing and don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's 100% relevant regardless of the obvious fact that you are too slow-witted to stay out of your own way.
> > > >
> > > > If municipal authorities are too irresponsible to declare martial law they deserve what they get. Any business owner needs to ask himself why he is located in a jurisdiction that chooses to not enforce the law. And that is exactly why large, 'liberal' cities are recognized as shitholes to avoid.
> > ~ Jerry asked what a cop should do if he encountered a black looter during the Buffalo snowstorm and he or she resisted arrest. Martial law was not declared during the Buffalo snowstorm (and it would have been ridiculous if it was), therefore your comment about martial law was irrelevant (and simultaneously ridiculous). Your failure to understand the concept of irrelevance is not consistent with your self-declared high IQ.
> >
> >
> > Look, it's quite obvious that you're feeling pretty stupid for blabbing as you did that police, as a policy, should allow criminals to get away with looting. You >recognized that course of action would only encourage more looting when I MADE you think of it. Your tongue obviously weighs more than your brain.
> I did not say anything about "police policy." I summarized the constitutional law of the United States with respect to the use of lethal force by law enforcement. Do you understand that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States and that it far outranks "police policy?" It appears you do not.
> > And now you're straining mightily to convince someone that it's forbidden to discuss martial law in the context of looting because someone else didn't use the words 'martial law' in their comment? Do you not think this is recognized as your typical patented diversion from your original stupidity?
> >

~ You jumped in like the comical fool you are and said the answer I provided to Jerry's question, which was well established constitutional law with respect to lethal force by law enforcement, showed "there's zero chance that your IQ is not lower than that of anyone else who posts here." Martial law was not part of the fact scenario behind Jerry's question, therefore it is irrelevant to his question. The fact that you STILL can't see that is a reflection of your low IQ.


Here's the synopsis of the conversation:

~ On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 9:38:37 PM UTC-8, paulpo...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
>
> No problem. Call a cop.

Jerry: But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?
Blabbermouth: .. he or she should just let the suspect escape.
Me: Every criminal in town is going to be back the next night for their free TV. Jesus, what a stupid shit.
Blabbermouth: I simply restated US law.
Me: Which wouldn't apply once martial law is declared.

It's so sad for you that looting and martial law can be mentioned in the same conversation, isn't it? LOL.

> And the idea that New York would declare martial law because a few stores were broken into during a snowstorm is well beyond moronic, even for you.
> > ~ By the way, since when do municipal authorities have the authority to declare martial law? That's news to me.
> >
> >
> > Then you obviously know very little about the common law. And that is not a surprise.

~ I have a Juris Doctor from a common law jurisdiction and I have been studying Canadian and US comparative law for over 30 years. The fact that you think you know more about common law than I do is entirely consistent with your delusion that you have a high IQ. That said, having a JD doesn't mean I know everything. So show me and this group the common law decision(s) that support your contention that "municipal authorities" have the authority to declare martial law. I am confident in saying no such common law exists. While you are at it, show me the legal authorities you rely upon to believe a citizen's constitutional rights are suspended during martial law, beyond what is expressly provided for in the Constitution of the United States.


Martial law has been declared numerous times in the U.S.A. Was it all done illegally? You are quite dense. That ulimately derives from the common law dating back to ninth century England:
'The posse comitatus (from the Latin for "power of the county/community/guard"), frequently shortened to posse, is in common law a group of people mobilized by the conservator of peace – typically a reeve, sheriff, chief, or another special/regional designee like an officer of the peace potentially accompanied by or with the direction of a justice or ajudged parajudicial process given imminence of actual damage – to suppress lawlessness, defend the people, or otherwise protect the place, property, and public welfare..'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_comitatus

In dual sovereignty America, if a local authority's ability to provide the governance and security listed above is inadequate a request is made to the state's governor to declare martial law and employ the National Guard to enforce it and that power is not constrained by the Posse Comitatus Act.

The simple fact of the matter is that you do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about which is par for the course.

I could, BTW, inform you of the interesting manner in which National Guard troops are pre-positioned to carry out such operations but why bother trying too educate someone as miserably immune to learning and so compulsively committed to shouting it from a rooftop as you?

[BillB]

You have the reading comprehension skills of a child.

"In dual sovereignty America, if a local authority's ability to provide the governance and security listed above is inadequate a request is made to the state's governor to declare martial law."

Is the state's governor a "municipal authority?"

So even your own reference proves you wrong, AND you ignored my second question. What makes you think that even if the STATE'S GOVERNOR (not "municipal authorities") declared martial law, that that somehow extinguishes the public's rights under the Bill of Rights (other than a narrow exceptions as set out in the Constitution itself). How does the declaration of martial law overrule the 4th Amendment rights of the individual as set out in Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor?

This is all ignoring the fact that martial law would NEVER be declared for the situation that existed in Buffalo during and after the snowstorm. That is a ridiculous totalitarian fantasy on your part. Martial law is a last resort in emergency situations when local and state law enforcement is overwhelmed. It's only lawful use is as an extraordinary measure.

And the final question remains: Why do you keep returning for more and more humiliation? It is obvious you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. What do you get out of making a fool of yourself? You wouldn't last a week in law school.

[risky biz]

~ You have the reading comprehension skills of a child.

>
> "In dual sovereignty America, if a local authority's ability to provide the governance and security listed above is inadequate a request is made to the state's governor to declare martial law."
>
> Is the state's governor a "municipal authority?"

A municipal authority effectively declares martial law by requesting the state's Governor to do so and call out the National Guard. Surely you aren't too dense to grasp that. No, I think you are just now desperately trying to divert from the obvious revelation that you, once again, have no idea what you are talking about.


~ So even your own reference proves you wrong, AND you ignored my second question.


No, it doesn't. Martial law is declared when a local authority requests it. A governor does not unilaterally declare martial law without a local authority declaring it a necessity. You are flailing desperately.


~ What makes you think that even if the STATE'S GOVERNOR (not "municipal authorities") declared martial law, that that somehow extinguishes the public's rights under the Bill of Rights (other than a narrow exceptions as set out in the Constitution itself). How does the declaration of martial law overrule the 4th Amendment rights of the individual as set out in Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor?


Is this the 'narrow exception' you're referring to? LOL.

Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."


~ This is all ignoring the fact that martial law would NEVER be declared for the situation that existed in Buffalo during and after the snowstorm. That is a ridiculous totalitarian fantasy on your part. Martial law is a last resort in emergency situations when local and state law enforcement is overwhelmed. It's only lawful use is as an extraordinary measure.


You keep trying to ride that like your little hobby horse but I never expressed an opinion one way or the other as to whether martial law should or should not have been declared in Buffalo, N.Y. recently.


~ And the final question remains: Why do you keep returning for more and more humiliation? It is obvious you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. What do you get out of making a fool of yourself? You wouldn't last a week in law school.


Because it's amusing to humiliate your phony, pompous ass? Guilty.

'The posse comitatus (from the Latin for "power of the county/community/guard"), frequently shortened to posse, is in
👉common law👈

a group of people mobilized by the conservator of peace – typically a reeve, sheriff, chief, or another special/regional designee like an officer of the peace potentially accompanied by or with the direction of a justice or ajudged parajudicial process given imminence of actual damage – to suppress lawlessness, defend the people, or otherwise protect the place, property, and public welfare (see also ethical law enforcement (police by consent etc.)). The posse comitatus as an English jurisprudentially defined doctrine dates back to ninth-century England and the campaigns of Alfred the Great (and before in ancient custom and law of locally martialed forces) simultaneous thereafter with the officiation of sheriff nomination to keep the regnant peace (known as "the queen/king's peace").[2] Justus Causus is everpresently necessary in establishing, forming, or calling up a posse and can never be the basis for the very lawlessness or subversion of order this legal maxim is intended to subdue and defend against.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_comitatus


Pardon me for suspecting that YOU didn't last a week in law school.

[BillB]

No, they don't "effectively declare martial law." What a stupid comment. They request it from someone who has the authority, and it is up to the person with that authority to grant the request or not. You are excruciatingly dumb. Municipal authorities do not have the authority to declare martial law in the US, but you are too immature to admit you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about, as usual.

> ~ So even your own reference proves you wrong, AND you ignored my second question.
>
>
> No, it doesn't. Martial law is declared when a local authority requests it. A governor does not unilaterally declare martial law without a local authority declaring it >a necessity. You are flailing desperately.

All false. It is up to the state's governor to decide, and he or she is the person who will declare it, because municipal authorities have no such authority. Once again you prove you don't know what you are talking about.

> ~ What makes you think that even if the STATE'S GOVERNOR (not "municipal authorities") declared martial law, that that somehow extinguishes the public's rights under the Bill of Rights (other than a narrow exceptions as set out in the Constitution itself). How does the declaration of martial law overrule the 4th Amendment rights of the individual as set out in Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor?
>
>
> Is this the 'narrow exception' you're referring to? LOL.
>
> Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:
> "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Yes, that was exception I was referring to. Why did you dodge the question? Because you did some research and now realize you didn't have a clue what you were talking about?

> ~ This is all ignoring the fact that martial law would NEVER be declared for the situation that existed in Buffalo during and after the snowstorm. That is a ridiculous totalitarian fantasy on your part. Martial law is a last resort in emergency situations when local and state law enforcement is overwhelmed. It's only lawful use is as an extraordinary measure.
>
>
> You keep trying to ride that like your little hobby horse but I never expressed an opinion one way or the other as to whether martial law should or should not have been declared in Buffalo, N.Y. recently.

I answered Jerry's question about what a cop should do if a looter in the Buffalo snowstorm was resisting arrest, and you said it showed me to have the lowest IQ in the group. Now you are trying to backpedal as fast as you can. My answer to Jerry was a summary of US constitutional law that would govern that scenario. You proved once again you don't have a clue about US law.

> ~ And the final question remains: Why do you keep returning for more and more humiliation? It is obvious you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. What do you get out of making a fool of yourself? You wouldn't last a week in law school.
>
>
> Because it's amusing to humiliate your phony, pompous ass? Guilty.
> 'The posse comitatus (from the Latin for "power of the county/community/guard"), frequently shortened to posse, is in
> 👉common law👈
> a group of people mobilized by the conservator of peace – typically a reeve, sheriff, chief, or another special/regional designee like an officer of the peace potentially accompanied by or with the direction of a justice or ajudged parajudicial process given imminence of actual damage – to suppress lawlessness, defend the people, or otherwise protect the place, property, and public welfare (see also ethical law enforcement (police by consent etc.)). The posse comitatus as an English jurisprudentially defined doctrine dates back to ninth-century England and the campaigns of Alfred the Great (and before in ancient custom and law of locally martialed forces) simultaneous thereafter with the officiation of sheriff nomination to keep the regnant peace (known as "the queen/king's peace").[2] Justus Causus is everpresently necessary in establishing, forming, or calling up a posse and can never be the basis for the very lawlessness or subversion of order this legal maxim is intended to subdue and defend against.'
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_comitatus
>
>
> Pardon me for suspecting that YOU didn't last a week in law school.

More stupidity. Do you know what trumps the common law every time? Do you know how the common law changes over time? Do you still think government agents can shoot and kill someone just for stealing? Are you incapable of learning?

[risky biz]

~ On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 9:04:05 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 3:41:57 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:

~ What makes you think that even if the STATE'S GOVERNOR (not "municipal authorities") declared martial law, that that somehow extinguishes the public's rights under the Bill of Rights (other than a narrow exceptions as set out in the Constitution itself). How does the declaration of martial law overrule the 4th Amendment rights of the individual as set out in Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor?
> >
> >

> > Is this the 'narrow exception' you're referring to? LOL.
> >
> > Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:
> > "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

~ Yes, that was exception I was referring to.


Explainer: BillBlabbermouth of Vancouver, who has 'been studying Canadian and US comparative law for over 30 years' just discovered Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. The 'narrow exception' you could drive a freight train through.
😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣



~ Why did you dodge the question? Because you did some research and now realize you didn't have a clue what you were talking about?


Yeah, right .. ME.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

Habeas Corpus is the right of a detainee or prisoner to have a court determine whether their detention or imprisonment is lawful or unlawful.

Blabbermouth NOW asserts that the latter is a 'narrow exception' to the former.

Please, someone- maybe one of his fellow attorneys, please make your best case that Blabbermouth has not here reduced himself to the state of a turtle that clumsily flipped itself onto it's back and can't right itself.

Wonderful start to a new year of trolling. Phew!

[BillB]

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 2:20:33 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> ~ On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 9:04:05 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 3:41:57 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
>
> ~ What makes you think that even if the STATE'S GOVERNOR (not "municipal authorities") declared martial law, that that somehow extinguishes the public's rights under the Bill of Rights (other than a narrow exceptions as set out in the Constitution itself). How does the declaration of martial law overrule the 4th Amendment rights of the individual as set out in Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor?
> > >
> > >
>
> > > Is this the 'narrow exception' you're referring to? LOL.
> > >
> > > Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:
> > > "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
> ~ Yes, that was exception I was referring to.
>
>
> Explainer: BillBlabbermouth of Vancouver, who has 'been studying Canadian and US comparative law for over 30 years' just discovered Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. The 'narrow exception' you could drive a freight train through.
> 😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
>

Yes, that is the narrow exception I referred to previously, as it is the only constitutional right that is potentially affected (and only in cases of rebellion or insurrection). That's because, as I also said, it is explicitly dealt with in the Constitution itself. It does not affect in the slightest a citizen's right not to be unlawfully subjected to lethal force by law enforcement, so you are once again clinging to irrelevancies.

> ~ Why did you dodge the question? Because you did some research and now realize you didn't have a clue what you were talking about?
>
>
> Yeah, right .. ME.
>
> The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
>
> Habeas Corpus is the right of a detainee or prisoner to have a court determine whether their detention or imprisonment is lawful or unlawful.
>
> Blabbermouth NOW asserts that the latter is a 'narrow exception' to the former.
>
> Please, someone- maybe one of his fellow attorneys, please make your best case that Blabbermouth has not here reduced himself to the state of a turtle that clumsily flipped itself onto it's back and can't right itself.
>
> Wonderful start to a new year of trolling. Phew!

lol He still doesn't get it.

[risky biz]

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:23:32 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 2:20:33 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > ~ On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 9:04:05 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 3:41:57 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> >
> > ~ What makes you think that even if the STATE'S GOVERNOR (not "municipal authorities") declared martial law, that that somehow extinguishes the public's rights under the Bill of Rights (other than a narrow exceptions as set out in the Constitution itself). How does the declaration of martial law overrule the 4th Amendment rights of the individual as set out in Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor?
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Is this the 'narrow exception' you're referring to? LOL.
> > > >
> > > > Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:
> > > > "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
> > ~ Yes, that was exception I was referring to.
> >
> >
> > Explainer: BillBlabbermouth of Vancouver, who has 'been studying Canadian and US comparative law for over 30 years' just discovered Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. The 'narrow exception' you could drive a freight train through.
> > 😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
> >

~ Yes, that is the narrow exception I referred to previously, as it is the only constitutional right that is potentially affected (and only in cases of rebellion or insurrection). That's because, as I also said, it is explicitly dealt with in the Constitution itself.


Mm, hmm. An exception to the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, the right of a detainee or prisoner to have a court determine whether their detention or imprisonment is lawful or unlawful, is actually a 'narrow exception' to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

You are flailing horrifically.


~ It does not affect in the slightest a citizen's right not to be unlawfully subjected to lethal force by law enforcement, so you are once again clinging to irrelevancies.


Subsequent to the Great Galveston hurricane, to restore public order, Mayor [M-A-Y-O-R] Walter C. Jones declared martial law. Forty-three civilians tried by court-martial in a military tribunal were convicted, and ordered shot.

Isn't it way past due time for you to just melt away in silence? All you're accomplishing is further solidification of your reputation as an uneducated jackass who clothes himself in astoundingly florid fantasies: 'I have been studying Canadian and US comparative law for over 30 years'.

[BillB]

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:43:19 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:23:32 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 2:20:33 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > > ~ On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 9:04:05 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 3:41:57 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > >
> > > ~ What makes you think that even if the STATE'S GOVERNOR (not "municipal authorities") declared martial law, that that somehow extinguishes the public's rights under the Bill of Rights (other than a narrow exceptions as set out in the Constitution itself). How does the declaration of martial law overrule the 4th Amendment rights of the individual as set out in Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > Is this the 'narrow exception' you're referring to? LOL.
> > > > >
> > > > > Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:
> > > > > "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
> > > ~ Yes, that was exception I was referring to.
> > >
> > >
> > > Explainer: BillBlabbermouth of Vancouver, who has 'been studying Canadian and US comparative law for over 30 years' just discovered Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. The 'narrow exception' you could drive a freight train through.
> > > 😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
> > >
> ~ Yes, that is the narrow exception I referred to previously, as it is the only constitutional right that is potentially affected (and only in cases of rebellion or insurrection). That's because, as I also said, it is explicitly dealt with in the Constitution itself.
>
>
> Mm, hmm. An exception to the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, the right of a detainee or prisoner to have a court determine whether their detention or imprisonment is lawful or unlawful, is actually a 'narrow exception' to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
>
> You are flailing horrifically.

No, I am not. As I said in the first place, it is the one narrow exception to a citizen's constitutional rights being curtailed during martial law, only because it is specifically set out specifically in the Constitution. All other constitutional rights remain intact, including the right not to be subjected to lethal force for stealing. That's what refuted, remember? You have drifted off into irrelevancies again. Your "common law" examples (which aren't common law) from 120 years do not trump constitutional law that has been the law of the land since the 1980s. I showed a quote directly from the Supreme Court saying you must let a suspected felon escape if the only other option is lethal force, unless the suspect poses an imminent threat of serious physical harm to someone.

> ~ It does not affect in the slightest a citizen's right not to be unlawfully subjected to lethal force by law enforcement, so you are once again clinging to irrelevancies.
>
>
> Subsequent to the Great Galveston hurricane, to restore public order, Mayor [M-A-Y-O-R] Walter C. Jones declared martial law. Forty-three civilians tried by court-martial in a military tribunal were convicted, and ordered shot.
>
> Isn't it way past due time for you to just melt away in silence?

Why? Because you failed sixth grade civics? What you call "common law" from over a century ago does not survive binding Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Constitution in the 1980s. I thought you were a self-proclaimed expert in common law?

>All you're accomplishing is further solidification of your reputation as an uneducated jackass who clothes himself in astoundingly florid fantasies: 'I have been >studying Canadian and US comparative law for over 30 years'.

You forgot the part about have a Juris Doctor from a common law jurisdiction.

[Wallace Gragman]

Buy polka dot shroom bars, one up mushroom bars and Trippy flip chocolate bars.
Polkadot chocolate helps you conquer your day or make it an adventure depending on how you choose to dose. Polka dot magic belgian chocolate bars are not only delicious, but also very powerful. These mushroom chocolates are equivalent to 4 grams of Psilocybin & Psilocin from Psychedelic Mushrooms. Aside from the full-fledged high of eating a number of chocolates, these are helpful for those who are fans of microdosing, as the chocolate hide the fungi flavor and you can eat 1 square at a time. Now available here at affordable prices. Being the official producers and suppliers of polka dot chocolate bars, it has also come to our attention that magic mushrooms have been decriminalized in Washington, DC. Each bar contains 15 easily-breakable pieces.

Polka dot shroom bars review
To continue, this is 1 of the oldest and safest medicines in the world. This psilocybin and psilocin from psychedelic mushrooms reduces stress, depression, stimulate brain cell growth. She will also increase focus, and sharpen your senses.

POLKADOT CHOCOLATE DOSAGE

MICRODOSE: 1-3 PIECES. STIMULATE THE MIND.

THERAPEUTIC: 4-9 PIECES. MINDFUL AND ELEVATED.

GOD MODE: 10-15 PIECES. WALLS MIGHT MELT.

Micro dosing psychedelics is the practice of consuming very low, sub-hallucinogenic doses of a psychedelic substance. Substances such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), mushroom chocolates or psilocybin containing mushrooms. Polka dot shroom bars have different verities. Each flavor taste different since they all have different ingredients. With the Cinnamon toast crunch flavor, the main ingredients are mushrooms, a naturally flavored chocolate sweetened wheat and rice cereal with a hint of cinnamon. This mushroom chocolate bar has a sweet taste due to a whopping 17 grams of sugar and 6 grams of sugar that is present in the chocolate bar.




Buy Polka dot chocolate barst https://www.legalweedzon.com/product/polka-dot-mushroom-chocolate/
Buy trippy flip mushroom chocolates https://www.legalweedzon.com/product/trippy-flip-chocolate-bar/
Buy one up mushroom bar https://www.legalweedzon.com/product/one-mushroom-bar

We provide next-day overnight drop-off at your secured delivery address with no signature required. You don’t sign up for a package and delivery is 100% secured and guaranteed, 100% money back if anything happens with the package or the package not deliver, and with the help and confirmation from the delivery company, we reship within 4 days or refund money back if you will not like to use our services.
Phone N0: +15156614951



#where to buy mushroom chocolate

#buy mushroom chocolate bar

#where can i buy mushroom chocolate

#buy mushroom chocolate

#where to buy mushroom chocolate bars

#buy mushroom chocolate bars

#where can you buy mushroom chocolate

#can you buy mushroom chocolate i colorado

#can you buy mushroom chocolate

#how to buy mushroom chocolate