Law Enforcement
Law Enforcement
Posted on Nov 2, 2023
Mississippi police killed her son, then buried him in a pauper's grave without telling her
1.49K
27
11
7
7
0
What would happen if a private company did this?
Mississippi police killed her son, then buried him in a pauper's grave without telling her
Posted from reason.comPosted in these groups: 
Law EnforcementLaw Enforcement Professional (LEP)
Law Enforcement SpecialistBasic Law Enforcement
Death
Law EnforcementLaw Enforcement Professional (LEP) Law Enforcement SpecialistBasic Law Enforcement Death
Posted 6 mo ago
Responses: 9
7
7
0
Unacceptable...there is no positive spin on this. This is just wrong!
(7)
(0)
5
5
0
CPL LaForest Gray
I clearly state :
“The rules of the 2nd Amendment means nothing to myself because others used the pen and force, to brainwash people to lose/surrender their birthright to protect themselves. “
Those that made those rules to disarm did it for their safety and ability to abuse as a FACT.
So for myself regardless of ANY legislation currently in the works or in the future that strips away the right of self-protection/self-preservation never has nor will it EVER apply to myself.
I have FACTS of history to know better.
Also interesting those that love to defend the 2nd Amendment are silent when I post the FACTS of ( “African Americans/Black People/Colored/Negro/The African/The Backs/The Coloreds/The “N-Word”) being ACTUAL victims of what they fear happing to themselves …. Silence.
You’d think that they would use it to strengthen their 2nd amendment arguments.
1.) The Secret History of the Second Amendment as an African-American Civil Right
AUGUST 30, 2021
Florida law in 1825 authorized white people to “enter into all Negro houses” and “lawfully seize and take away all such arms, weapons, and ammunition
In 1825, Florida’s “Act to Govern Patrols” provided that white citizens “shall enter into all negro houses and suspected places, and search for arms and other offensive or improper weapons, and may lawfully seize and take away all such arms, weapons, and ammunition.”
An Act concerning patrols, in Compilation of the Public Acts of the Legislative Council of the Territory of Florida, Passed Prior to 1840, at 65 (John P. Duval ed., 1839).
Subject(s):
* Race and Slavery Based
Jurisdiction(s):
* Florida
Year(s):
1833
Sec. 15. Be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for any patrol of this Territory, to take from any slave or slaves any fire-arms, or other dangerous weapons, to be delivered by said patrol to the justice of the peace of said district . . . .
Sec. 17. Be it further enacted, That it shall not be lawful for any slave, free negro, or mulatto, to keep or retain in his or their house or houses, any fire-arms whatsoever, and it is hereby made the duty of the patrol to search negro houses or other suspected places for fire-arms, and if any they find, contrary to the true intent and meaning of this act, may take the same to the nearest justice of the peace, who may proceed therewith as directed in a preceding section of this act; and the negro or negroes, in whose possession the same may be found, on failing to give a plain and satisfactory account of the manner he or they came possessed of the same, may be severally punished by moderate whipping on the bare back, not exceeding thirty-nine lashes.
SOURCE : https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-concerning-patrols-in-compilation-of-the-public-acts-of-the-legislative-council-of-the-territory-of-florida-passed-prior-to-1840-at-65-john-p-duval-ed-1839/
The above FACTS is what legislation what actual “Gun Control” & “Stripping Away the 2nd Amendment” looks like.
It was done around the United States of America and not just a few isolated places.
You’re welcomed.
BONUS again :
A.] What was the gun law in Florida in 1825?
28, 31, prohibited slaves outside the company of whites or without written permission from their master from using or carrying firearms unless they were hunting or guarding the master's plantation. (Id.) Slave and free black homes searched for guns for confiscation. "An Act to Govern Patrols," 1825 Acts of Fla.
B. ] 1792 United States
Blacks excluded from the militia, i.e., law-abiding males thus instilled with the right to own guns. Uniform Militia Act of 1792 "called for the enrollment of every free, able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of eighteen and forty-five" to be in the militia and specified that every militia member was to "provide himself with a musket or firelock, a bayonet, and ammunition." [1 Stat. 271 (Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 80, No. 2, "The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration," Robert Cottrol and Raymond Diamond, 1991, p. 331)]
C.] The FACTS
* 1825 Florida
Slave and free black homes searched for guns for confiscation. "An Act to Govern Patrols," 1825 Acts of Fla. 52, 55 - Section 8 provided that white citizen patrols "shall enter into all negro houses and suspected places, and search for arms and other offensive or improper weapons and may lawfully seize and take away all such arms, weapons, and ammunition...." Section 9 provided that a slave might carry a firearm under this statute either by means of the weekly renewable license or if "in the presence of some white person." (Id.)
* 1828 Florida
Free blacks permitted to carry guns if court approval. Act of Nov. 17, 1828 Sec. 9, 1828 Fla. Laws 174, 177; Act of Jan. 12, 1828, Sec. 9, 1827 Fla. Laws 97, 100 - Florida went back and forth on the question of licenses for free blacks; twice in 1828, Florida enacted provisions providing for free blacks to carry and use firearms upon obtaining a license from a justice of the peace. (Id.)
* 1831 Florida
Race-based total gun ban. Act of Jan. 1831, 1831 Fla. Laws 30 - Florida repealed all provision for firearm licenses for free blacks. (Id. p. 337-38)
SOURCE : https://urbanareas.net/info/the-racist-origins-of-us-gun-control/
*** Disclaimer : This a repost from myself, because people are tooooo comfortable with the status quo. ***
“I will not apologize for telling the FACTS, in a world that worship the lies”.
“The rules of the 2nd Amendment means nothing to myself because others used the pen and force, to brainwash people to lose/surrender their birthright to protect themselves. “
Those that made those rules to disarm did it for their safety and ability to abuse as a FACT.
So for myself regardless of ANY legislation currently in the works or in the future that strips away the right of self-protection/self-preservation never has nor will it EVER apply to myself.
I have FACTS of history to know better.
Also interesting those that love to defend the 2nd Amendment are silent when I post the FACTS of ( “African Americans/Black People/Colored/Negro/The African/The Backs/The Coloreds/The “N-Word”) being ACTUAL victims of what they fear happing to themselves …. Silence.
You’d think that they would use it to strengthen their 2nd amendment arguments.
1.) The Secret History of the Second Amendment as an African-American Civil Right
AUGUST 30, 2021
Florida law in 1825 authorized white people to “enter into all Negro houses” and “lawfully seize and take away all such arms, weapons, and ammunition
In 1825, Florida’s “Act to Govern Patrols” provided that white citizens “shall enter into all negro houses and suspected places, and search for arms and other offensive or improper weapons, and may lawfully seize and take away all such arms, weapons, and ammunition.”
An Act concerning patrols, in Compilation of the Public Acts of the Legislative Council of the Territory of Florida, Passed Prior to 1840, at 65 (John P. Duval ed., 1839).
Subject(s):
* Race and Slavery Based
Jurisdiction(s):
* Florida
Year(s):
1833
Sec. 15. Be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for any patrol of this Territory, to take from any slave or slaves any fire-arms, or other dangerous weapons, to be delivered by said patrol to the justice of the peace of said district . . . .
Sec. 17. Be it further enacted, That it shall not be lawful for any slave, free negro, or mulatto, to keep or retain in his or their house or houses, any fire-arms whatsoever, and it is hereby made the duty of the patrol to search negro houses or other suspected places for fire-arms, and if any they find, contrary to the true intent and meaning of this act, may take the same to the nearest justice of the peace, who may proceed therewith as directed in a preceding section of this act; and the negro or negroes, in whose possession the same may be found, on failing to give a plain and satisfactory account of the manner he or they came possessed of the same, may be severally punished by moderate whipping on the bare back, not exceeding thirty-nine lashes.
SOURCE : https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-concerning-patrols-in-compilation-of-the-public-acts-of-the-legislative-council-of-the-territory-of-florida-passed-prior-to-1840-at-65-john-p-duval-ed-1839/
The above FACTS is what legislation what actual “Gun Control” & “Stripping Away the 2nd Amendment” looks like.
It was done around the United States of America and not just a few isolated places.
You’re welcomed.
BONUS again :
A.] What was the gun law in Florida in 1825?
28, 31, prohibited slaves outside the company of whites or without written permission from their master from using or carrying firearms unless they were hunting or guarding the master's plantation. (Id.) Slave and free black homes searched for guns for confiscation. "An Act to Govern Patrols," 1825 Acts of Fla.
B. ] 1792 United States
Blacks excluded from the militia, i.e., law-abiding males thus instilled with the right to own guns. Uniform Militia Act of 1792 "called for the enrollment of every free, able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of eighteen and forty-five" to be in the militia and specified that every militia member was to "provide himself with a musket or firelock, a bayonet, and ammunition." [1 Stat. 271 (Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 80, No. 2, "The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration," Robert Cottrol and Raymond Diamond, 1991, p. 331)]
C.] The FACTS
* 1825 Florida
Slave and free black homes searched for guns for confiscation. "An Act to Govern Patrols," 1825 Acts of Fla. 52, 55 - Section 8 provided that white citizen patrols "shall enter into all negro houses and suspected places, and search for arms and other offensive or improper weapons and may lawfully seize and take away all such arms, weapons, and ammunition...." Section 9 provided that a slave might carry a firearm under this statute either by means of the weekly renewable license or if "in the presence of some white person." (Id.)
* 1828 Florida
Free blacks permitted to carry guns if court approval. Act of Nov. 17, 1828 Sec. 9, 1828 Fla. Laws 174, 177; Act of Jan. 12, 1828, Sec. 9, 1827 Fla. Laws 97, 100 - Florida went back and forth on the question of licenses for free blacks; twice in 1828, Florida enacted provisions providing for free blacks to carry and use firearms upon obtaining a license from a justice of the peace. (Id.)
* 1831 Florida
Race-based total gun ban. Act of Jan. 1831, 1831 Fla. Laws 30 - Florida repealed all provision for firearm licenses for free blacks. (Id. p. 337-38)
SOURCE : https://urbanareas.net/info/the-racist-origins-of-us-gun-control/
*** Disclaimer : This a repost from myself, because people are tooooo comfortable with the status quo. ***
“I will not apologize for telling the FACTS, in a world that worship the lies”.
(0)
(0)
CPL LaForest Gray
Video appears to show Tyre Nichols being beaten by multiple Memphis officers
Memphis officials release pole camera video appearing to show multiple police officers beating Tyre Nichols during a traffic stop at an intersection near the...
SGT (Join to see)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=rWEELY-II8k&feature=share
1.) Why Do So Many Recent Veterans Dislike Police Officers?
Tom note: Here is the fourth entry in our 10 Long March posts for 2018, the 7th most-read item of...
BY TOM RICKS | PUBLISHED DEC 19, 2018 1:30 PM
“The worst thing we can do is give police military equipment without the training that needs to go with it,” Aaron Barruga, a former Special Forces soldier, wrote in my old Best Defense column. “Without such training, departments that are given military equipment simply will informally make up their own tactics. This uncertainty can lead quickly to tactics that are actually dangerous to officers and citizens alike.”
SOURCE : https://taskandpurpose.com/culture/veterans-dislike-police-officers/?amp
2.) I’m an Iraq Veteran. The Cops Are Treating Citizens Like They’re Under Occupation.
“Seeing police across America escalate violence against protesters made me think of my service in Iraq. In retrospect, I both did and didn’t expect that we’d be treating Americans, and especially black Americans, like they were under occupation. The difference is that in the military, we had rules of engagement and training, even if they didn’t always succeed, to stop us from making an awful situation worse. The cops don’t seem to have that. “
“When I saw the video of Minnesota police and National Guard shooting paint canisters into quiet houses on a residential street, it showed me a throughline in all these police reactions. No matter the department or the locality, there’s a total lack of discipline. I can empathize: Walking the beat can be very scary. So does feeling as though an attack is imminent. The timbre of the cop’s voice, growling “Get inside now!” shows a ton of terror that governs how you act and respond. It won’t be proportionate.”
SOURCE : https://www.thedailybeast.com/im-an-iraq-veteran-the-cops-are-treating-citizens-like-theyre-under-occupation
3.) Stop Training Police Like They’re Joining the Military
If policing is to change, the spotlight must turn toward police academies, where new recruits are first inculcated into the folkways of their profession.
SOURCE : https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/police-academies-paramilitary/612859/
The Murder & Coverup.
SOURCE : https://youtu.be/XFKUYdm2HBg
https://youtube.com/watch?v=rWEELY-II8k&feature=share
1.) Why Do So Many Recent Veterans Dislike Police Officers?
Tom note: Here is the fourth entry in our 10 Long March posts for 2018, the 7th most-read item of...
BY TOM RICKS | PUBLISHED DEC 19, 2018 1:30 PM
“The worst thing we can do is give police military equipment without the training that needs to go with it,” Aaron Barruga, a former Special Forces soldier, wrote in my old Best Defense column. “Without such training, departments that are given military equipment simply will informally make up their own tactics. This uncertainty can lead quickly to tactics that are actually dangerous to officers and citizens alike.”
SOURCE : https://taskandpurpose.com/culture/veterans-dislike-police-officers/?amp
2.) I’m an Iraq Veteran. The Cops Are Treating Citizens Like They’re Under Occupation.
“Seeing police across America escalate violence against protesters made me think of my service in Iraq. In retrospect, I both did and didn’t expect that we’d be treating Americans, and especially black Americans, like they were under occupation. The difference is that in the military, we had rules of engagement and training, even if they didn’t always succeed, to stop us from making an awful situation worse. The cops don’t seem to have that. “
“When I saw the video of Minnesota police and National Guard shooting paint canisters into quiet houses on a residential street, it showed me a throughline in all these police reactions. No matter the department or the locality, there’s a total lack of discipline. I can empathize: Walking the beat can be very scary. So does feeling as though an attack is imminent. The timbre of the cop’s voice, growling “Get inside now!” shows a ton of terror that governs how you act and respond. It won’t be proportionate.”
SOURCE : https://www.thedailybeast.com/im-an-iraq-veteran-the-cops-are-treating-citizens-like-theyre-under-occupation
3.) Stop Training Police Like They’re Joining the Military
If policing is to change, the spotlight must turn toward police academies, where new recruits are first inculcated into the folkways of their profession.
SOURCE : https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/police-academies-paramilitary/612859/
The Murder & Coverup.
SOURCE : https://youtu.be/XFKUYdm2HBg
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
1.) Police Have No Duty to Protect the Public
Though often unsaid in police reform debates, numerous court precedents have established that cops aren’t obligated to act in the interests of citizens.
BY RAMENDA CYRUS APRIL 18, 2022
“Let us go back eleven years to February 2011, in the very same place, New York City. As he told in a Cracked.com video some four years ago, Joseph Lozito was on his morning commute through New York City when he hopped on the subway, blissfully unaware of a brutal stabbing spree—perpetuated by Maksim Gelman—that had been going on for over 24 hours at that point.
Lozito would be the final victim in the stint. After Gelman boarded the train and confronted the police officers that were in a secure area, he turned to Lozito and said, “You’re going to die.”
What transpired afterwards was what Lozito described as what “every man thinks about at least twice a day.” Lozito tackled Gelman and they struggled physically, with Gelman stabbing Lozito in the head until they both hit the ground and Lozito disarmed Gelman. Only then did the NYPD officers intervene to apprehend Gelman.
In this case, one of the cops allegedly admitted that he did not intervene in the altercation because he thought Gelman had a gun, instead hiding from the attacker. This prompted Lozito to sue the city of New York. He lost the case in 2013, but not because the Manhattan Supreme Court judge didn’t believe him, or because he lacked evidence, or because the cops had a good reason for not intervening. Lozito lost because of a precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court: the cops do not have a duty to protect you, or anyone”
SOURCE : https://prospect.org/justice/police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-public/
2.) Fact Check: Do Police Have a Duty To Protect Individuals?
NO! Generally, The Police Have No Duty To Protect You!
Says more than one Landmark Case at U.S. Supreme Court Case, Including Castle Rock and Deshaney
The Supreme Court says police are only required to protect the government aka the “community.”
DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Annotation
Primary Holding
The Fourteenth Amendment does not require the state to intervene in protecting residents from actions of private parties that may infringe on their life, liberty, and property.
U.S. Supreme Court
DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services
No. 87-15
Argued November 2, 1988
Decided February 22, 1989
489 U.S. 189
Syllabus
Petitioner is a child who was subjected to a series of beatings by his father, with whom he lived. Respondents, a county department of social services and several of its social workers, received complaints that petitioner was being abused by his father, and took various steps to protect him; they did not, however, act to remove petitioner from his father's custody. Petitioner's father finally beat him so severely that he suffered permanent brain damage, and was rendered profoundly retarded. Petitioner and his mother sued respondents under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that respondents had deprived petitioner of his liberty interest in bodily integrity, in violation of his rights under the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, by failing to intervene to protect him against his father's violence. The District Court granted summary judgment for respondents, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held: Respondents' failure to provide petitioner with adequate protection against his father's violence did not violate his rights under the substantive component of the Due Process Clause. Pp. 489 U. S. 194-203.
(a) A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means. Pp. 489 U. S. 194-197.
(b) There is no merit to petitioner's contention that the State's knowledge of his danger and expressions of willingness to protect him against that danger established a "special relationship" giving rise to an affirmative constitutional duty to protect. While certain "special relationships" created or assumed by the State with respect to particular individuals may give rise to an affirmative duty, enforceable through the Due Process
SOURCE : https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/489/189/
Though often unsaid in police reform debates, numerous court precedents have established that cops aren’t obligated to act in the interests of citizens.
BY RAMENDA CYRUS APRIL 18, 2022
“Let us go back eleven years to February 2011, in the very same place, New York City. As he told in a Cracked.com video some four years ago, Joseph Lozito was on his morning commute through New York City when he hopped on the subway, blissfully unaware of a brutal stabbing spree—perpetuated by Maksim Gelman—that had been going on for over 24 hours at that point.
Lozito would be the final victim in the stint. After Gelman boarded the train and confronted the police officers that were in a secure area, he turned to Lozito and said, “You’re going to die.”
What transpired afterwards was what Lozito described as what “every man thinks about at least twice a day.” Lozito tackled Gelman and they struggled physically, with Gelman stabbing Lozito in the head until they both hit the ground and Lozito disarmed Gelman. Only then did the NYPD officers intervene to apprehend Gelman.
In this case, one of the cops allegedly admitted that he did not intervene in the altercation because he thought Gelman had a gun, instead hiding from the attacker. This prompted Lozito to sue the city of New York. He lost the case in 2013, but not because the Manhattan Supreme Court judge didn’t believe him, or because he lacked evidence, or because the cops had a good reason for not intervening. Lozito lost because of a precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court: the cops do not have a duty to protect you, or anyone”
SOURCE : https://prospect.org/justice/police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-public/
2.) Fact Check: Do Police Have a Duty To Protect Individuals?
NO! Generally, The Police Have No Duty To Protect You!
Says more than one Landmark Case at U.S. Supreme Court Case, Including Castle Rock and Deshaney
The Supreme Court says police are only required to protect the government aka the “community.”
DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Annotation
Primary Holding
The Fourteenth Amendment does not require the state to intervene in protecting residents from actions of private parties that may infringe on their life, liberty, and property.
U.S. Supreme Court
DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services
No. 87-15
Argued November 2, 1988
Decided February 22, 1989
489 U.S. 189
Syllabus
Petitioner is a child who was subjected to a series of beatings by his father, with whom he lived. Respondents, a county department of social services and several of its social workers, received complaints that petitioner was being abused by his father, and took various steps to protect him; they did not, however, act to remove petitioner from his father's custody. Petitioner's father finally beat him so severely that he suffered permanent brain damage, and was rendered profoundly retarded. Petitioner and his mother sued respondents under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that respondents had deprived petitioner of his liberty interest in bodily integrity, in violation of his rights under the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, by failing to intervene to protect him against his father's violence. The District Court granted summary judgment for respondents, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held: Respondents' failure to provide petitioner with adequate protection against his father's violence did not violate his rights under the substantive component of the Due Process Clause. Pp. 489 U. S. 194-203.
(a) A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means. Pp. 489 U. S. 194-197.
(b) There is no merit to petitioner's contention that the State's knowledge of his danger and expressions of willingness to protect him against that danger established a "special relationship" giving rise to an affirmative constitutional duty to protect. While certain "special relationships" created or assumed by the State with respect to particular individuals may give rise to an affirmative duty, enforceable through the Due Process
SOURCE : https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/489/189/
Police Have No Duty to Protect the Public
Though often unsaid in police reform debates, numerous court precedents have established that cops aren’t obligated to act in the interests of citizens.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google 
