Sorry I was referring to the 3 month old fetus.
Maybe a 8 month old would be known by looking at her? Do you think there should be a investigation into what exactly happened even if that may put officers at risk?
I believe one could successfully argue that the 8-month old fetus has the same status, legally, as any 8-month old fetus involved in an illegal late-term abortion case.
The difficulty would be in establishing her willful negligence and crimes, or the lack thereof.
I believe one could successfully argue that the 8-month old fetus has the same status, legally, as any 8-month old fetus involved in an illegal late-term abortion case.
The difficulty would be in establishing her willful negligence and crimes, or the lack thereof.
I believe one could successfully argue that the 8-month old fetus has the same status, legally, as any 8-month old fetus involved in an illegal late-term abortion case.
The difficulty would be in establishing her willful negligence and crimes, or the lack thereof.
I think we both know that's not what they said to her, nor was it ever their intention to directly harm any babies...
What "abortion"? There was no abortion in these cases.
I said that some may consider her negligent actions "on par with," or as bad as, an illegal late term abortion.
Until gun rights are removed from "terrorist threats".
Then the definition of "terrorism" is expanded. Now people who are not natural born can't have firearms... Then they find a way to classify things like drivers licences or other unusual qualifying requirements.
Someone who simply sat down on a sidewalk and did not move when told by cops is now a national threat.... A speeding ticket is next..... ANY infraction (downloading MP3s...).
The key to oppression is to do it slowly and keep cutting off the pieces that give you the most problems a little at a time. You crush too quickly and you get too much to handle, to many people who are hurt by the incisions.
That's how the Nazi's did it. Bit by bit, until it was "too late" to look to your brethren for help, because they had already been taken.
I can't find any solid documentation yet on the woman who has miscarried her pregnancy yet. All I see right now are initial reports of the incident.
A woman who is three months pregnant can be obvious, or not depending on her body type.
If followup reporting does back up her story then the behavior of the officers is very disturbing indeed.
False. Non-citizens can own firearms and even carry concealed.
OWS is still a bit of a confusing entity. How are meditation circles and daily yoga events have anything to do with protesting.
-snip-
I have also asked you to provide some support either in police procedure or in statute that says someone will be considered violent and can/should be chemically assaulted after ignoring police orders.
False. Non-citizens can own firearms and even carry concealed.
I'm fairly certain that's not true. I knew of a guy that seemed like a terrorist in school that ended up getting filmed by the FBI shooting some assault rifles on a ranch in South Texas and got the book thrown at him.
I think you have to have a child to really have an opinion of abortion. Ask me 10-15 years ago and I'd be all pro choice... ask me today and I'll tell you that is a baby.. I don't know at what point... but bottom line is that it's a baby. It's going to grow into a baby as long as you don't kill it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xVJgBb3-z8w
Here's a good video comparing #occupy and the tea party. It goes over the tactic of interviewing random people and putting the worst of the worst on tv to influence peoples opinions of the movement.
It's funny seeing Hannity fiip flop completely between the 2 movements on the same exact issues.
It's meant to necessarily be a fox news hit piece. Fox news just does their own magic.
I'm fairly certain that's not true. I knew of a guy that seemed like a terrorist in school that ended up getting filmed by the FBI shooting some assault rifles on a ranch in South Texas and got the book thrown at him.
I work and shoot with a canadian. He has every single right as a citizen except vote.
The Court most recently mentioned the Second Amendment in dicta in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 110 S. Ct. 1839 (1990). Verdugo-Urquidez was a citizen and resident of Mexico, and a drug dealer. The Mexican police arrested him in Mexico, and brought him to the U.S., where the U.S. cops arrested him. With the permission of the Mexican police, the U.S. narcs searched his residence (in Mexico), and found documentary evidence detailing drug shipments to the U.S. Verdugo-Urquidez moved for suppression of that evidence as a violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. The question for the court: Does the Fourth Amendment apply to non-resident non-citizens outside the U.S.? The answer: "No". The court's reasoning: The Fourth Amendment protects the right of "the people" to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Who are "the people"? According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, the phrase "the people" was a term of art used by the Framers. Rehnquist wrote:
The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1, ("Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble"); Art. I, s 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. 110 S. Ct. at 1061. Since Verdugo-Urquidez is not part of "the people," he is not protected by the Fourth Amendments (nor, apparently, by the First, Second, Ninth, or Tenth).
Absolutely.Sorry I was referring to the 3 month old fetus.
Maybe a 8 month old would be known by looking at her? Do you think there should be a investigation into what exactly happened even if that may put officers at risk?
The point is that IF she disobeyed any officer's lawful order, then it was actually SHE who "did not follow the law" -- hence the possible charge of negligence.And some may consider that absolutely ridiculous. The ONLY thing a sane person would say in this would be that she did not need to be there, and that she WAS risking her health, but NOT that it is her fault the cop did her wrong.
She is only responsible for going out where cops did not follow the law.
Right. I asked you what parts of their actions met the definition of violence, and you said that they were fervent about something. That was patently absurd.
I have also asked you to provide some support either in police procedure or in statute that says someone will be considered violent and can/should be chemically assaulted after ignoring police orders.
God... #occupy is simply a treasure trove of pictures and videos. Where do they find these degenerate cops anyhow?