Welcome to PatsFans.com

Carmin Ortiz makes case for

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by IllegalContact, Jan 17, 2013.

  1. IllegalContact

    IllegalContact Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,616
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +12 / 1 / -2

    My Jersey:

    why we still need the 2nd amendment today and why government is better off being smaller rather than larger........

    she should be fired immediately for screwing the pooch so badly in the Aaron Swartz case
  2. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,480
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -1

    My Jersey:

    Why????????????
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2013
  3. IllegalContact

    IllegalContact Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,616
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +12 / 1 / -2

    My Jersey:

    to protect ourselves from an increasingly incompetent legal system.......I simply cannot entrust our government to assure my best interests.

    The fact that a federal prosecutor drove someone to suicide due to overzealousness makes this necessary...

    I'm sorry for what happened in Newtown......doesn't change a thing as long as the primary characterstic of a government person is personal ambition.

    just the way it has to be

    if Aaron Swartz was my son, I'm not sure I could contain myself
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2013
  4. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,480
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -1

    My Jersey:

    No one "drives" anyone else to kill themselves.

    You've said so yourself.

    http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...d/12/766667-3-counting-page6.html#post2572663

    Aaron Schwartz had a long history of depression. DId his current troubles add to his anxiety and depression? I'm sure they did - but, in the end, he chose to commit the act which led to his arrest.

    As you say, there are consequences to our actions which we, alone, are responsible for.
  5. IllegalContact

    IllegalContact Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,616
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +12 / 1 / -2

    My Jersey:

    doesn't excuse the acts of an overzealous prosecutor basing their case on a 25 year old computer law. an obvious personal ambition drove this to what it was.

    the company (JSTOR) did not even want to prosecutre, but that did not stop the ortiz.

    this is completely different from any madoff investor

    to correlate, this would be like madoff giving the money back to the investor, but the government takes it away and says 'tough' and then the person killing themselves

    Last edited: Jan 17, 2013
  6. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    To advocate for more gun violence will not solve anything..
  7. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,334
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -7

    My Jersey:

    The Second Amendment is just as relevant today as it was when it was enacted.


    1.) Protection from tyranny

    2.) Protection from foreign threats

    3.) Protection of ones person, family, and home
  8. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,624
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #15 Jersey
    I heard a taped interview the other day with Aaron Swartz. Wow! The interview took place in the mid 90's, which was of course was when the Internet was fairly new. Aaron was a visionary and was able to nail what the Internet could become. I am always amazed with people that write or create something that is still relevant 100 years later. The Internet still is relatively new, but ranks very high in the world's innovations. Aaron Swartz gave the interview when he was 14 years old.
  9. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ~~~Out of Order~~~ PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,491
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #87 Jersey

    Having a gun in one's house for protection seems very standard to me. I'm not sure why anyone would not consider it unless there were problems related to that in that household - mental illness, history of violence, alcoholism and situations like those where more careful thought is needed.

    Living here in Rhode Island my house has:

    Generator, canned goods, bottled water, shovel, snow blower, ice melt, candles, small propane tanks, extra batteries, fire extinguishers, all exterior doors with door knob lock, dead bolts, chains and I have 3 guns - a 38, 9mm and an old double barrel shotgun. If I have enough time my choice will be the shotgun with the others tucked in my clothes. The dead bolts should give me the time I need.

    This satisfies my thinking for possible emergencies ... as the man of the house I feel it's my responsibility to protect my family. Whether or not I'll have capacity to do so is a separate discussion ... but hopefully I can react as needed. If someone feels the need to have a semi automatic rifle in their house ... I see no problem with that.

    I'm not willing to roll the dice - gambling is not my style I would rather be prepared and thankfully the 2nd Amendment allows me the freedom to protect my family as needed.

    I have no problem with tightened restrictions of gun laws, better screening to get them, licensing, training, better protection in the mental health category. But I do think there has been a major over reaction to the Sandy Hook tragedy. if the passion was there on this issue where was it after Aurora or before Sandy Hook? True passion of a cause should not need tragedy to bring about more awareness.

    I think many people who already hated guns are using it to strengthen their own gun opinions. it's near impossible to protect for everything and sadly there will be more tragedies that will probably have more creative ways to create carnage. Those intent on mass killings ... especially if they want to kill themselves will just go the suicide vest route if they cannot get a gun. or they may go the car bomb route ... more alertness by ordinary citizens and family members is the answer to reducing violent deaths.
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2013
  10. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,334
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -7

    My Jersey:


    I think most Progressives think that the state will be protecting them and the reality is that the police have no obligation to protect individual citizens (unless they have committed to some special relationship).

    Everyone is responsible for their own protection.
  11. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ~~~Out of Order~~~ PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,491
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #87 Jersey
    i have faith in police protection to a point ... like when you call them. But they are so overwhelmed with mundane crap everyday there is only so much they can do. I'd rather be safe than sorry. is it a gamble with guns in the house - yes it is but I believe the need outweighs the minimal risk.
  12. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,334
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -7

    My Jersey:


    A doctor when he treats you has an obligation to "protect" you from harm. The police have no such obligation to individuals. You can call the police...they can tell you someone is on the way and then not show up.

    Why rely on people who have no obligation to even show up and protect you?
  13. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,480
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -1

    My Jersey:

    Yes, and then you can sue them.

    Family says slow response by police contributed to death | KSBY.com | San Luis Obispo, Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, Paso Robles

    Actually, they do.

    All police departments have a code of conduct and ethics which they swear to abide by when they are sworn in as police officers.

    This is Florida's code:
    Florida Department of Law Enforcement

    El Paso, Tx.

    http://shr.elpasoco.com/NR/rdonlyres/7A3D02A5-E92B-4055-AF7E-90D92A3DF6D3/0/code_of_conduct.pdf

    Idaho:

    http://www.post.idaho.gov/Professio...eace Officers Codes of Ethics and Conduct.pdf

    And so on and so forth......
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2013
  14. IllegalContact

    IllegalContact Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,616
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +12 / 1 / -2

    My Jersey:

    Who's advocating that?

    Simply put, the government can't be counted on to make the right decisions. The need for the private citizen to be armed still exists.......end of story
  15. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,334
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -7

    My Jersey:



    Sigh.....I guess you have never heard of Warren vs District of Columbia:


    Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.

    By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.[


    Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




    Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

    The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

    Police have no responsibility to protect individuals (reference)
  16. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,247
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    If you look at the great revolutions in the history of our nation after 1776, they are:
    - The northern revolution against southern racism
    - The worker's largely nonviolent revolution against oppressive employers
    - The woman's nonrevolution against sexist society
    - The black nonviolent revolution against racism
    - The gay nonviolent revolution against homophobia.

    The reality is that the only time we really needed weapons was when the US government waged war against the slave-owning south that wanted to secede.

    All the other wars against tyranny did not involve weapons.
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2013
  17. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,334
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -7

    My Jersey:


    The gay nonviolent revolution against homophobia. Now that one is funny. :D

    Let's see some of that gay "non-violence"

    Anti-Proposition 8 Mob Attacking Grandmother - YouTube
  18. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    The Wikipedia is suspect, not to say it is not valid, but there is no corraboration of the article and there is no record of the actual decision on the internet...

    You are aware that Wiki is self edited, and when I commented on the article they invited me to edit it.. but, someone else can do that.

    Interestingly enough here is where they got the information for the article... which creates a great deal of skepticism on my part..

    PT Barnum loves those folks who just believe..

  19. 1228

    1228 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:


    Hilarious. Why don't you click on that first citation and read it rather than dismissing it because it's hosted by a pro-gun site?

    If I'm not being clear enough:

  20. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    You are not being clear enough, information from blogs without the actual citation is unreliable.. as is Wikipedia..

    There is no caption of case law that was decided.. a quick and dirty search of the internet shows up nothing..

    BTW Guns Right Alert is a pro gun sie.. not sure where you figured that one out, but check it out.. at best it is a liberatarian site, that relies on audio blogs.. unreliable??
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2013
  21. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,334
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -7

    My Jersey:

    Warren v District of Columbia is a well know case....are you kidding me?...lol.


    Ok fine.....here's a copy of the actual decision:


    http://gunrightsalert.com/documents/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia_444_A_2d_1.pdf


    And these people put together a 96 page manuscript on the decision...they and Barnes and Noble are in on the lie too:


    BARNES & NOBLE | Warren V. District Of Columbia by Lambert M. Surhone | Paperback



    Here is another legal brief that cites Warren v. DC (look on page 28). I guess they're in on it too:


    http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/rawlings-opinion.pdf



    Here's another one where they cite Warren v. DC (page 31). More people in on it:


    http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/lawsuits/Mem Heller Sum Jud.pdf



    And yet another court case that cites Warren (page 5):


    http://statecasefiles.justia.com/do...urt-of-appeals/02-cv-1312-5.pdf?ts=1323894139




    Let me guess the NY times is lying about Castle Rock v. Gonzales too, right?


    CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES



    And the liberal ACLU is in on it too:


    http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/gonzalesf122805.pdf
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2013
  22. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,582
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    That decision is being is disingenuously being hyped beyond its intension. People react to it like, Oh no, police don't have to respond when I call 9-11, I better get a gun, oh nooooo!...and the NRA and the fear mongers are just as happy to advance that contention. The thing is, since the decision I'd guess that some where around nine or ten thousand law enforcement officers have lost their lives in the line of duty. How many were injured or disabled? Doing what, not protecting us???? The decision simply clears police of the legal responsibility of failing in their efforts while they are trying to protect us. While I disagree that it includes negligence and indifference, I can see what a nightmare it would be if the police were sued every time a perfect ending wasn't achieved when they were trying to do their jobs.

    Police put their lives on the line protecting us. Enough with the hype already.
  23. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,334
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -7

    My Jersey:


    But the decision does include negligence (thats the point) and the decision clearly states that the police have no obligation to protect individuals.
    Would you put your life in the hands of a doctor who couldn't be sued for malpractice?
    The bottom line is that the police have no obligation to protect you as an individual. It is case law. It has been held up in the courts on the "state" and Supreme Court level. There is no way to deny it.

    As for the hype...tell that to those poor women who were raped and beaten for 14 hours and see if they agree.
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2013
  24. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,582
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    That's what I meant, i worded it poorly. I disagree with that part of the decision that it does include negligence but I disagree with your bottom line... Despite the decision police ignore it for the most part and do their duty. It is case law, but in practice, on the streets it isn't the issue. There is no way to deny that.

    The women, yeah they got the raw end due to the negligence of the police, that's why I don't like the decision.. I don't like the inference that it is the norm though. The decision wasn't in place obviously though so how could those cops been relying on it? Cops die protecting every day. I believe more in that bottom line than the message you're trying to tout with this case law.
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2013
  25. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,334
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -7

    My Jersey:


    Raw end? Being raped and beaten for 14 hours is the "raw end"? Wow. I would say that would be inexcusable.
    And Ms. Gonzales....did she get the "raw end" too when the police failed to respond to her repeated (5 times) requests for the police to enforce a legal restraining order only to be ignored?
    I guess having your 3 daughters brutally murdered is the "raw end' too.
  26. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    This case is not all that well known, despite what you contend.. there are more recent decisions by the SCOTUS which back your contention..

    The decision you refer to went to the federal court of appeals, the SCOTUS did not hear it.. that is why it is so obscure, except on NRA jerk off message boards..

    A more recent decision..

    CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES
  27. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,582
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    The police were negligent and should have been fired. I disagree with the decision. What happened to the women was horrible and inexcusable. The larger point is this decision is being used to instill the idea that the police won't protect you so you need guns. Guns are the issue. every pro gun group in the world know this decision word for word. It's amazing how many people fall for it. The decision goes too far by excusing incompetence and negligence but it didn't keet 10000 law enforcement people from losing their lives protecting people since its decision. The decision is meant to keep people from suing police departments for every bad outcome. It's clearly isn't meant to tell the police they have no business protecting us. They do in spite of the decision.
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2013
  28. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,334
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -7

    My Jersey:



    Oh....my.....goodness. :eek:

    I didn't say that Warren v DC was a SCOTUS case.

    And I'm the one who who mentioned Castle Rock v. Gonzales in this very thread. :eek:

    I mean....I don't even know what to say to you anymore. Seriously.
  29. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,334
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -7

    My Jersey:


    Ok, well believe whatever you'd like to believe but the case law is clear.....they have no obligation to protect individuals.

    Now, most police may want to protect you. Some may do so even giving up their own lives. But let me ask you this question.....

    What if the police don't want to protect individuals like they didn't want to protect Ms. Gonzales and her now deceased 3 daughters or what if they screw up royally like they did for Ms. Warren and her friends? What then?
  30. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    You inferred it was a big deal, as you listed it first.. at best it is obscure and does not even come up on routine bing or google search.

    It is a big deal on NRA message board, there are more recent and more relevant SCOTUS decisions..

    Go eek yourself, happy endings..

Share This Page