Michelle Obama's speech

[Prayer Warrior]

I'm sorry that it happened to you. Let me tell you some stories I know of. The other day an officer have a woman a warning because she was destracted because she had just had a break up with her boyfriend. An officer gave a black man a warning because he was jobless and living with a friend. He was on his way to a job interview. A cop gave a woman a warning because she was distracted because she just found out she was pregnant. I could go on an on with these stories. THESE are the people who serve us. And they are the VAST majority of the people who wear the badge. The one you had an issue with cop be a cop that shouldn't be one. But he also equally could have had a bad moment due to any number of circumstances in his life. Maybe he just got served divorce papers, or found out someone had cancer or just was in a fight with someone.
Cut him a break until you know more. Just like you would want one. He shouldn't have yelled at you and taken things out in you. It was wrong.
But it also doesn't make him a BAD COP.

It also doesn't make 20% of cops bad cops.

I agree with most of what you are saying. That experience stuck with me because I’m a law-abiding citizen who had just been through a really tough experience. Otherwise, I possibly could have shrugged it off.

I was a public school teacher, and I worked hard to be a good teacher, but God knows I had my days where I failed miserably for one reason or another. We all have those days, and I would not want them to define me as a teacher, so I understand what you’re saying, and I certainly don’t see all officers as bad based on that one experience.

 

[rjs330]

DON'T MISUNDERSTAND, -- I AM NOT ANTI-LAW-ENFORCEMENT. I'm simply against BAD GOVERNMENT, whether it the OBAMA Administration working to OVERTHROW a DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT through corrupting the Intelligence Agencies, DOJ, FBI, and State Department; or the corruption of our own local Law Enforcement agencies which would deprive us of our Constitutional Protections; or any other U.S. or State -- Department or Agency, or Municipal Office, all the way down to the dog catcher who would exceed the authority of their office.

And I AM IN STRONG SUPPORT for our Government Officials who Perform their jobs efficiently, effectively, and fairly according to the responsibility and limitations of their offices.

But with this acknowledgement, also comes the anticipation that our Government will turn against those who refuse to participate in the Electronic Cashless Society. So whatever your individual future's hold, it will be a DIFFICULT FUTURE for Christians, and so I would admonish each and everyone to plan for these events accordingly, -- so that NONE should suffer everlasting shame and contempt, but ALL should receive to everlasting glory --, being prepared as GOD leads.

Bobby Jo

You have a really good point. And one I believe is absolutely correct. When the government seeks to control people on a law level police will be asked to be the enforcers. And they too will submit or loose their jobs. I think eventually we will have a national police force. Think Gestapo or the KGB. Right now there are police all over this country who are not following the "orders" of government. They are not enforcing mask restrictions and in places they are not enforcing certain gun laws that violate the Constitution. But just like everyone else some day they too will serve the controlling government or suffer the consequences.

You do come across as ant-law enforcement though. Especially with you comments on how 20% if cops are bad and 60% are corrupt.

 

[rjs330]

LA COUNTY SHERIFFS BOMBSHELL NEWS
August 2, 2020

FBI investigating tattooed deputy gangs in Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
July 11, 2019
FBI investigating tattooed deputy gangs in Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

The FBI is investigating a secret society of tattooed deputies in East Los Angeles as well as similar gang-like groups elsewhere within the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, multiple people familiar with the inquiry said. ...
​

LA Sheriff Probes Deputy-Gang Claim, Seeks to Punish Dozens
August 13, 2020
https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...obes-deputy-gang-claim-seeks-to-punish-dozens

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said Thursday it has launched a “comprehensive investigation” into allegations that a renegade group of deputies calling themselves The Executioners have taken control of the department's Compton station through threats, intimidation and harassment. ...
​

Gangs in Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Cost Taxpayers $55 million
August 8, 2020
Gangs in Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Cost Taxpayers $55 million

Los Angeles County has paid out roughly $55 million in settlements in cases in which sheriff’s deputies have been alleged to belong to a secret society, records obtained by the Los Angeles Times show, illuminating the entrenched nature of a subculture that has plagued the Sheriff’s Department for years. ...
​

LASD has been 'permeated' by a violent deputy gang with matching tattoos called the 'executioners'
August 3, 2020
LASD has been 'permeated' by a violent deputy gang with matching tattoos called the 'executioners'

A gang of sheriff's deputies called the "Executioners, has "permeated" a Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department patrol station and has engaged in civil rights abuses against the public, according to a claim filed with county officials last week. ...​

... and Law Enforcement (including the FBI) has known for AT LEAST a YEAR, but it's apparently been still operating with impunity. -- Nothing to see. Move along.
Bobby Jo

I know about this. And there have been some pretty corrupt portions of agencies. New Orleans for example and these situations you posted. So it does happen. It you take a look at the size of these departments and the number of cops involved them are small and a minority. And when you take into consideration all of law officers its a tiny sliver.

I will add this to the equation. Police departments have lowered standards over the years in order to get more minorities and more cops in general. This has lead to people being hired with criminal records. Citizens must realize that when you lower standards you get lower standard people. Like EVERYTHING if you want good people you have to have good standards and good pay and benefits to hire good people.

The cops job is one of the most difficult jobs on the planet because of what they deal with and what they are expected to do.

 

[Bobby Jo]

... THESE are the people who serve us. ...

1,000% AGREED!

And HERE'S TWO OFFICERS who DON'T serve us:

So while there are DOZENS who SERVE us, -- apparently there are HUNDREDS that ABUSE us, either DIRECTLY or indirectly by NOT STOPPING their fellow officers from abusing us Citizens.
Bobby Jo

 

[Bobby Jo]

... You do come across as ant-law enforcement though. Especially with you comments on how 20% if cops are bad and 60% are corrupt.

Yeah, I suppose it's because I was FORCED to have Dash Cams mounted in ALL my vehicles because of our Dishonest Police. And as provided previously, the Camera is NOT mounted on the inside of the windshield, but on the DOME LIGHT, so that it captures my Speedometer, my Turn-signals, my Seat-Belt light, and my Hands On The Steering Wheel.

And just so we know, I live in a small community where we have the highest per capita of Ph.D's and where some HALF of the population either HAS or HAD (-retirement-) a TOP SECRET Security Clearance. And we're still confronted by basic human nature for which King David KNEW and wisely FEARED:

2 Samuel 24:14 Then David said to Gad, “I am in great distress; let us fall into the hand of the Lord, for his mercy is great; but let me not fall into the hand of man.”​

Bobby Jo

 

[Bobby Jo]

... New Orleans for example ...

Actually, MANY truckers used to refuse to drive the Interstate through the State of Louisiana because of HIGHWAY ROBBERY by Corrupt Police along the Interstate. So they'd drive a couple hundred miles out of their way, wasting their time, fuel, and vehicle wear, to save being ROBBED. -- And it's interesting that about that same time, a NEWS Crew was dispatched to cover the Story, AND THEY WERE PULLED OVER by Corrupt Police.

So as a word to the wise, -- a $100 Dash Cam is worth the investment, not only to record any Police interaction but also to document any accident you might either see, or be involved with.


Be as King David, and DON'T TRUST YOUR WELFARE to men. (2 Samuel 24:14)
Bobby Jo

 

[rjs330]

1,000% AGREED!

And HERE'S TWO OFFICERS who DON'T serve us:

So while there are DOZENS who SERVE us, -- apparently there are HUNDREDS that ABUSE us, either DIRECTLY or indirectly by NOT STOPPING their fellow officers from abusing us Citizens.
Bobby Jo

You know what those cops did NOTHING wrong. Nothing. They gave a right under the law to INVESTIGATE whether a crime has been, is being or IS ABOUT TO BE committed. So under the circumstances they had a right to investigate. In some states and I don't know about this state but in some you are required to produce ID when requested. Thirdly there is no law restricting the use of handcuffs during an investigation. He was informed he was not under arrest and being detained for investigation. The length of time was well within reasonable. So, in short, this is just another example of a lack of knowledge regarding the law. These cops violated no rights and acting well within the bounds of the law. The only question I have is the ID, because I don't know this states requirements.

 

[Bobby Jo]

You know what those cops did NOTHING wrong. Nothing. ...

EXACTLY why I've asserted that you are NOT INFORMED or OBJECTIVE.

In a FREE SOCIETY, and certainly inTexas (not a Stop-&-ID-State), citizens ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE IDENTIFICATION unless the Police have Reasonable Suspicion they HAVE/ARE/or-ABOUT -- TO COMMIT A CRIME.

Furthermore, these CRIMINALS physically BATTERED this individual in the course of ILLEGALLY obtaining his fingerprints, -- A VIOLATION of the 4th AMENDMENT:

Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that the defendant's arrest in El Paso, Texas, for a refusal to identify himself, after being seen and questioned in a high crime area, was not based on a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.​

... So here's a pretty funny video about the PoPo harassing a Black Man WHO KNOWS THE LAW, and has to teach the Police:

Man OWNS COPS demanding ID. this is how you STAND YOUR GROUND vs tyrants
Colorado Donkey Watch
May 9, 2019, 600,899 views

... and here's an interesting video of a 9-year-old female REPORTER for her "Orange Street News" being Targeted and Harassed by an IDIOT "Police Officer" ( -- and I use that term loosely --):

OSN Publisher Hilde Lysiak Threatened With Arrest
Orange Street News
Feb 18, 2019, 518,374 views

You don't know the Law, and certainly aren't Objective, yet you accused ME; and I think you owe citizens throughout the United States an APOLOGY! It's no wonder so MANY citizens are being self-educated about Dishonest/Disreputable/Disgusting Police behavior, where some take action to PROTECT THEMSELVES by using Cell Phone Cameras and Dash Cameras; and unfortunately some take to the streets in a direct EYE FOR AN EYE response WHERE WE ALL SUFFER.

-- The percentage remains at 20% Criminals; 60% Complicit; 20% Good Cops.
Bobby Jo

 

[rjs330]

EXACTLY why I've asserted that you are NOT INFORMED or OBJECTIVE.

In a FREE SOCIETY, and certainly inTexas (not a Stop-&-ID-State), citizens ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE IDENTIFICATION unless the Police have Reasonable Suspicion they HAVE/ARE/or-ABOUT -- TO COMMIT A CRIME.

Furthermore, these CRIMINALS physically BATTERED this individual in the course of ILLEGALLY obtaining his fingerprints, -- A VIOLATION of the 4th AMENDMENT:

Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that the defendant's arrest in El Paso, Texas, for a refusal to identify himself, after being seen and questioned in a high crime area, was not based on a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.​

... So here's a pretty funny video about the PoPo harassing a Black Man WHO KNOWS THE LAW, and has to teach the Police:

Man OWNS COPS demanding ID. this is how you STAND YOUR GROUND vs tyrants
Colorado Donkey Watch
May 9, 2019, 600,899 views

... and here's an interesting video of a 9-year-old female REPORTER for her "Orange Street News" being Targeted and Harassed by an IDIOT "Police Officer" ( -- and I use that term loosely --):

OSN Publisher Hilde Lysiak Threatened With Arrest
Orange Street News
Feb 18, 2019, 518,374 views

You don't know the Law, and certainly aren't Objective, yet you accused ME; and I think you owe citizens throughout the United States an APOLOGY! It's no wonder so MANY citizens are being self-educated about Dishonest/Disreputable/Disgusting Police behavior, where some take action to PROTECT THEMSELVES by using Cell Phone Cameras and Dash Cameras; and unfortunately some take to the streets in a direct EYE FOR AN EYE response WHERE WE ALL SUFFER.

-- The percentage remains at 20% Criminals; 60% Complicit; 20% Good Cops.
Bobby Jo

Those cops didn't do anything wrong. Sorry. You are the one not being objective. And I am very familiar with Brown. As I said this is in the field of my expertise. The man in the video was lawfully detained. He was not arrested. He gave them his ID. If he didn't and the cops actually arrested him for failing to do so, then they would have to articulate why. In this case they didn't. I know you hate cops it's obvious now.

The cop in Colorado stopped the guy for being on a property that says no Trespassing to ascertain whether or not the guy was TRESPASSING ON PROERTY THAT SAYS NO TRESPASSING. Perfectly legal. Now the guy told them that it was his property and they wanted to determine his ID to make sure it was his property. He refused to do so and they kept trying. They finally believed it was his property and they left after the discussion. The guys passion convinced them he was telling the truth and they did the right thing in leaving. He wasn't arrested or charged. No one's rights were violated. Sorry, a big fail again. And typically from the anti-cop crowd they don't really understand the law. If this guy sued the police he would LOSE because they violated no rights. They have a RIGHT to request ID. There is no law that prohibits that. Because the person can refuse, which this guy did. Where his rights would have been violated would have been if they charged him for it. After speaking with them they decided to end the stop because they came to the conclusion he wasn't trespassing. It's reasonable suspicion to stop someone to determine if they are or are not trespassing I'm property that says No Trespassing.

Now here is where I will share what I think they could have done better. Instead of approaching the guy they could have waited to see what he was doing. Did he walk in one gate and out the other? Did he work on the yard? Did he do things a normal homeowner might do? Or did he do other things? So, while technically they didn't violate any laws or rights, I would advise them to be more patient which could have avoided any issues with the man.

Like I said I train police and have hours and hours of training in this area. Including case law, and police procedures. I review police videos, police actions. I know what I am talking about. I am not an expert in individual laws in individual states. I have to research them before speaking to them. But in general constitutional law and case law I know what I am doing

Now that little girl. She is right to say she can follow police. There is no law that prohibits such a thing no the recording of such. And she can do so legally. That cop can't deny her that right. He HAS A RIGHT to tell her he doesn't give her permission to post it on the internet. It's called freedom of speech. But just cause he says that doesn't mean she can't.

 

[Bobby Jo]

Those cops didn't do anything wrong. Sorry. You are the one not being objective. And I am very familiar with Brown. As I said this is in the field of my expertise. The man in the video was lawfully detained. He was not arrested. He gave them his ID. ....

Do you wear "DISHONEST" glasses? "News Now Houston" DID NOT "GIVE THE OFFICERS HIS I.D." -- THEY TOOK IT BY FORCE.

And yes, they can detain him to see if there's any crime having/being/about-to-be committed. And if he presents a potential THREAT, they can handcuff him. -- But there was no REASONABLE SUSPICION there was a crime; and he was in plain sight, on a public sidewalk, holding a camera, and clearly NOT A THREAT. And then to cinch the HANDCUFFS so tight as to leave marks on his wrists, and STEAL HIS FINGERPRINTS, is CRIMINAL as defined by the 1979 "Brown Vs Texas" Supreme Court Ruling.


May GOD HELP ME if you're ever part of a case against me, -- BECAUSE YOU ARE IN LEAGUE WITH THE CRIMINALS, and MOTIVATE the counter-demonstrations in the streets.
Bobby Jo

 

[Bobby Jo]

... Now that little girl. She is right to say she can follow police. There is no law that prohibits such a thing no the recording of such. And she can do so legally. That cop can't deny her that right. He HAS A RIGHT to tell her he doesn't give her permission to post it on the internet. It's called freedom of speech. But just cause he says that doesn't mean she can't.

He "GAVE HER A DIRECT LAWFUL ORDER"(at 1:13), and that's not "freedom of speech" it's INTERFERENCE, INTIMIDATION, COERCION:

42 U.S. Code § 3617 - Interference, coercion, or intimidation

42 U.S. Code § 3617. Interference, coercion, or intimidation

It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by section 3603, 3604, 3605, or 3606 of this title.

(Pub. L. 90–284, title VIII, § 818, formerly § 817, Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 89; renumbered § 818 and amended Pub. L. 100–430, §§ 8(1), 10, Sept. 13, 1988, 102 Stat. 1625, 1635.)​

Cops do this ALL THE TIME. It's called "Cop-Splainin". It's not how a "friend" has a conversation, it's how a "LORD" commands that you OBEY. But you'll never understand, so let's stop wasting both our time and we'll see the results from our Criminal Police Departments played out in the streets.

Bobby Jo

 

[rjs330]

Do you wear "DISHONEST" glasses? "News Now Houston" DID NOT "GIVE THE OFFICERS HIS I.D." -- THEY TOOK IT BY FORCE.

And yes, they can detain him to see if there's any crime having/being/about-to-be committed. And if he presents a potential THREAT, they can handcuff him. -- But there was no REASONABLE SUSPICION there was a crime; and he was in plain sight, on a public sidewalk, holding a camera, and clearly NOT A THREAT. And then to cinch the HANDCUFFS so tight as to leave marks on his wrists, and STEAL HIS FINGERPRINTS, is CRIMINAL as defined by the 1979 "Brown Vs Texas" Supreme Court Ruling.


May GOD HELP ME if you're ever part of a case against me, -- BECAUSE YOU ARE IN LEAGUE WITH THE CRIMINALS, and MOTIVATE the counter-demonstrations in the streets.
Bobby Jo

How did they take his ID by force? At 2:55 he reached I to his own back pocket and gave them his ID. He also had failed to use tidy himself verbally at that point. And how did they steal his fingerprints. I missed that. They used a fingerprint scanner and at this point I don't believe there has been a court ruling disallowing that or requiring a search warrant.
Also they loosened his handcuffs in a reasonable amount of time. Do you know how often people complain about handcuffs? ALL THE TIME! Policies dictate when officers should check cuffs. They did and readjusted them for him. Whether they did it according to their policy is something I don't know. But our policy does not requires our local officers to check when someone complains about the cuffs in a reasonable amount of time. It was about 1 minute and they loosened them. And cuffs leave marks everytime they are used. They are not fuzzy and covered in rabbits fur. I have been in cuffs a LOT during our training sessions. I know what they feel like and I get the marks all the time as do our trainees. So the marks mean nothing. Especially in the short amount of time he was in them.

It's obvious now you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[rjs330]

He "GAVE HER A DIRECT LAWFUL ORDER"(at 1:13), and that's not "freedom of speech" it's INTERFERENCE, INTIMIDATION, COERCION:

42 U.S. Code § 3617 - Interference, coercion, or intimidation

42 U.S. Code § 3617. Interference, coercion, or intimidation

It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by section 3603, 3604, 3605, or 3606 of this title.

(Pub. L. 90–284, title VIII, § 818, formerly § 817, Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 89; renumbered § 818 and amended Pub. L. 100–430, §§ 8(1), 10, Sept. 13, 1988, 102 Stat. 1625, 1635.)​

Cops do this ALL THE TIME. It's called "Cop-Splainin". It's not how a "friend" has a conversation, it's how a "LORD" commands that you OBEY. But you'll never understand, so let's stop wasting both our time and we'll see the results from our Criminal Police Departments played out in the streets.

Bobby Jo

It sounds like the direct lawful order was about leaving the area due to a mountain lion being there. We have no idea what he told her before because that's not on video. But he explained that there was a mountain lion in the area and he was telling her to not be around because of that.
What did you hear was the lawful order.

 

[Bobby Jo]

How did they take his ID by force? At 2:55 he reached I to his own back pocket and gave them his ID. ...

THAT WASN'T HIS I.D., -- IT WAS A BUSINESS CARD. It provides his PINAC (Photography Is Not A Crime) affiliation, and his "NEWS NOW HOUSTON" YouTube page, -- but not his PERSONAL INFORMATION.

So from that point forward the "Police" (i.e., CRIMINALS) proceed to Frisk him; Cuff him (so tightly it forces his hands open to access his fingers while leaving marks and bruising on his wrists); ILLEGALLY Fingerprint him; and place him in the "cruiser" with the cuffs STILL SO TIGHT the citizen PLEADS FOR SOME RELIEF (at 4:50, until 5:40), without ANY COMPASSION by the "Police" (i.e., CRIMINALS); until he's finally released at 6:25.

And YOU are brainwashed.
Bobby Jo

 

[rjs330]

THAT WASN'T HIS I.D., -- IT WAS A BUSINESS CARD. It provides his PINAC (Photography Is Not A Crime) affiliation, and his "NEWS NOW HOUSTON" YouTube page, -- but not his PERSONAL INFORMATION.

So from that point forward the "Police" (i.e., CRIMINALS) proceed to Frisk him; Cuff him (so tightly it forces his hands open to access his fingers while leaving marks and bruising on his wrists); ILLEGALLY Fingerprint him; and place him in the "cruiser" with the cuffs STILL SO TIGHT the citizen PLEADS FOR SOME RELIEF (at 4:50, until 5:40), without ANY COMPASSION by the "Police" (i.e., CRIMINALS); until he's finally released at 6:25.

And YOU are brainwashed.
Bobby Jo

So he didn't provide ID. No did he identify himself. You've already stated I believe that they can, do what they did. So they didn't force him to provide his ID. They did get his fingerprints with scanners which is being used around this country to obtain identification of someone. And there is no law prohibiting it at this time. There may be something that comes out later, but for now it's legal.

So once again you have shown your ignorance as to the law. I definitely think the officers could have been more polished and professional. But they did nothing illegal here.

I don't think I'm going to respond to any more if your posts on this subject. You don't really know what you are talking about.

If this guys rights were so violated why didn't he sue? Or did he?

 

[Bobby Jo]

... I believe that they can, do what they did. ...

Oh, well that's different, -- Because THE REST OF THE WORLD believes that the Supreme Court of the United States DECIDES what Police can or cannot do:

Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that the defendant's arrest in El Paso, Texas, for a refusal to identify himself, after being seen and questioned in a high crime area, was not based on a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.

​

And it's not your fault you've been brain-washed, BUT IT IS YOUR FAULT that you're content in your brain-washing.
Bobby Jo

 

[rjs330]

Oh, well that's different, -- Because THE REST OF THE WORLD believes that the Supreme Court of the United States DECIDES what Police can or cannot do:

Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that the defendant's arrest in El Paso, Texas, for a refusal to identify himself, after being seen and questioned in a high crime area, was not based on a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.

​

And it's not your fault you've been brain-washed, BUT IT IS YOUR FAULT that you're content in your brain-washing.
Bobby Jo

Brown vs Texas does not apply to what you are talking about in this case. They followed Brown v Texas. Like I said you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Bobby Jo]

Brown vs Texas does not apply ...

"NEWS NOW HOUSTON" is in Texas. So unless you've moved the State Boundaries PRIOR TO MAY, they were in TEXAS and "BROWN v.TEXAS" applies. -- That is, unless your "world" is exempt from the rest of the universe ...

Even if you painted your glass lenses FLAT BLACK, you couldn't be any more BLIND.
Bobby Jo