Wednesday, July 22, 2015

The family should have peace of mind and should do what they need to do legally to achieve that peace of mind.

The Sandra Bland autopsies are legitimate. In every other case where family has challenged the declared death of a person there have been multiple autopsies. 

In the Sandra Bland death, the federal government is entering the picture from what I remember and they will have their own autopsy as well. I would not insist on any more evaluations of Sandra's death until the federal government has completed it's work.

July 20, 2015
By Kendra Rankin Naasel

Following the July 13, 2015, (click here) death of 28-year-old Sandra Bland in police custody, the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) says the FBI has now opened an investigation, which will include forensic analysis of videos related to the case. The Texas Rangers are also conducting an investigation....

The police officer states she had to get out of the car multiple times BEFORE he stated she was under arrest. She was scared. There was no clear indications by the officer he was going to arrest her far beyond the assault he made to her.

I do not see any reason, given the circumstances, the State of Texas or any other government entity has the right to recall Sandra's body into their custody. They have done enough to the family. The FBI will conduct their own autopsy. There is no other additional autopsy that should be allowed. It is too late for the State of Texas to cover up their errors and there is now a lack of trust and confidence in the state to realize errors were made. The FBI needs to conduct their investigation now.

There are no second chances. This is ridiculous. If the State of Texas has a clear understanding of what might have been misrepresented or missed or left in the body then they can bring that to the attention of the FBI.

The family has the right to refuse Sandra be again examined by Texas. If Texas doesn't like it they can tell it to the judge. Then the family has a right to appeal if a Texas judge actually thinks incompetency should be rewarded by more incompetency. 

Former Senator Santorum states, "I know of people that engaged in the gay lifestyle that does no more.

After being charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy by committing that act with another adult male in the bedroom of his home, respondent Hardwick (respondent) brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the statute insofar as it criminalized consensual sodomy. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the Georgia statute violated respondent's fundamental rights.

Held: The Georgia statute is constitutional. Pp. 478 U. S. 190-196.

(a) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. Pp. 478 U. S. 190-191....

I suppose if a Christian decides that the LGBTQ community is strange and should not be entitled to the rights other Americans enjoy, having a same sex relationship fail only to have a heterosexual relationship manifest, it would be a victory for God.

I am not interested in debating theology, but, when relationships fail it is usually because the married couple no longer finds themselves in love with each other. The idea that a gay relationship failed only to find the man now married to a woman is not a victory for anyone except the newly married couple. 

Men and women fall in and out of love. They may find themselves interested in a relationship with their own gender is a very loving relationship. Everyone wants a marriage to work. As Americans we always want to see the couple that is married for decades. Indeed, the 25th wedding anniversary is a silver anniversary and the 50 a gold anniversary. For Americans success is a solid relationship that survives time and trials. 

When a person enters into a same sex relationship that leads to marriage it is because the two people are in love with each other. That is all that is required to be married. If the same sex couple runs into difficult times and separate and divorce it is because it didn't work out. If one or both of the divorced couple falls in love with a member of the opposite sex, the only thing that defines is the understanding bisexuality exists. That is all there is to it. There is no reason for any religious figures popular or otherwise to rejoice at the failure of a same sex relationship. It proves nothing except another marriage in the USA failed. 

Any idea there is a special religious status to ending a same sex marriage and then marrying the opposite gender defines religious bigotry. Just that simple. 

[June 26, 2003]

Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions....

According to Chief Justice John Roberts, the decision regarding same sex marriage is based in liberty removed from people due to gender. 

Of course, Judge Alito sees the sky falling.

15 July 2015
By Courtney Corem 
He argued that in Obergefell v. Hodges, (click here) the marriage decision that the Supreme Court was ruling on, that liberty was defined as a guarantee under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to be "the freedom to define your understanding of the meaning of life."

If that's the case, Alito told The Weekly Standard, "there's no limit."

The Supreme Court justice said that the Rehnquist court had worked to limit legal definitions of liberty to those that were "deeply rooted in the traditions of the country."

"But the Obergefell decision threw that out," Alito said. "It did not claim that there was a strong tradition of protecting the right to same-sex marriage. This would have been impossible to find."

Alito contends that without limits on the legal definition of liberty, that constitutional rights could be handed out by justices according to their ideological whims, which also means the nominating a justice will be more like a political election, he said....
Christians should build their church on their own rock and not the civil rights of all Americans. There is absolutely no way a religious preference (It has always been my understanding Americans DECIDE what religion to practice.) should be levied against the liberties of all other Americans.

The officers involved should be charged with assault and manslaughter.

Sandra Bland did nothing wrong. Except, perhaps neglected to signal a lane change. Everything she did and everything she said was in self defense. She was afraid for her life and was trying to survive the onslaught.

The officer assaulted her. He began his assault with his first words to her. He didn't tell her why she was stopped, the very first words he stated was "Are you alright?" as he walked from the back to front of her vehicle checking the inside of the car and the front and back signal lights.

She did nothing wrong. She responded to every question he put to her and was respectful the entire time. THE ENTIRE TIME she was respectful until he went to pull her out of the car and she became scared and lost her emotional balance. Up to the point she was fine and composed.  

The officer stated get out of the car nine times before he stated she was arrested.

He lost his temper and she lost her bearings. She did nothing wrong. Not even when she tried to get away and defend herself did she do anything wrong. She was trying to save her own life.

Why doesn't the military simply move out of shopping malls?

These folks are constitutionally correct. If the military is not allowed to carry self-defense weapons inside the country then others do have the right to perform that important measure. 

A couple of things can happen. The high visibility will prevent attacks, but, it could also prevent customers from visiting the mall. The high visibility could only embolden others to form their own 'enemy' militia and hasten any armed conflict. Of the high visibility could simply prove to be a comfort to folks and there won't be anything that happens and it will prevent the formation of gangs with guns. 

But, these folks are legal and they are performing a valuable service. 

July 21, 2015
By Eric Levenson

It was a quiet afternoon (click here) at this unassuming strip mall not far from the main commercial strip in Manchester, New Hampshire, which includes a Chuck E. Cheese’s and a Hobby Lobby. But the sidewalk in front of one specific building was crowded with men holding guns. 

There were nearly a dozen of them, a mix of some law enforcement officers and military veterans. It started with four men on Monday morning, they said, but had grown to 15 of them working in shifts as the days passed. The place they had come to protect was outlined in bright red letters in a sign posted above their heads: Armed Services Career Center.

“The enemy knows these are soft targets,” said the man with the tattoo, whose name is Stevie D, told, “and we’re here to make them hard targets.”...

It's a weaponized drone. Drones are dangerou. This is a weapon of choice for drug cartels.

This article in RT is from 2012. These aren't new and it has been anticipated police would be able to use them. The drug cartels will have them before too much longer.

May 24, 2015

American police officers (click here) may soon be able to use unmanned aircraft not only for surveillance, but also for offensive action. The drones may be equipped to fire rubber rounds and tear gas....

...The US military and CIA have used drones armed with lethal weapons to target militants overseas for years. The prospect of having “lite” versions of those remotely controlled killer-machines circling over America gave some second thoughts to rights groups.

“It’s simply not appropriate to use any force, lethal or non-lethal, on a drone,” Catherine Crump, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told CBSDC.

She explained that an officer operating an armed drone from afar would simply not have the same understanding of a situation that an officer on location would have. So judgment on the use of force would be limited by this narrowness of observation.... 

The drone is made from materials available to the public. It is an equalizer. The government no longer has exclusive capacity of a very dangerous weapon. It is a guns rights issue. Are guns on drones legal?

The question is should weaponized drones be used anywhere and by anyone in the USA? If police are going to be armed with these weapons that makes an increase in the militarization of police. I thought there was a movement in DC to remove the militarized status of police to increase citizens' safety. This doesn't look as though any aspect of the US is being demilitarized.