Child's Father Puts Cops in Their Place - Police Officer Kidnappers

[Ares]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCvJUzW1HXA&feature=player_embedded

[Santa]

Wow, I'm definitely surprised they didn't taze his ass.

[Dogman]

5 will get you 10 , they will catch his ass somewhere off site and without his camera someday. They will keep an eye on him and every real, or perceived, law, ordnance or statute, they think he breaks, his ass will be theirs. Vengeance is mine , saith the cops. If you get on their shit list, they never forget. Have seen it many times.

And Santa you are right, they were just waiting for him to goof up and cross that inviable line.

[EE_]

Funny, he thinks he owns the rights to his child.

Try keeping your child out of school and see who owns the child.

[mick silver]

it sad but very true what ee wrote

[osoab]

Funny, he thinks he owns the rights to his child.

Try keeping your child out of school and see who owns the child.


Kid probably has a SS number.

[Ares]

Funny, he thinks he owns the rights to his child.

Try keeping your child out of school and see who owns the child.

I thought the samething, but if he knows the law like he think he does. The kid might have a family bible, and does not have a social slavery number.

That is only speculation either way.

[Ponce]

Cops are afraid of those who knows the law.......

[Ares]

Cops are afraid of those who knows the law.......

As it should be. People who know the law will sue the officer DIRECTLY and not get greedy and sue the department.

[Book]

Cops are afraid of those who knows the law...



They backed off because he is an uppity black guy who was yacking about his snivel rights.

[Ares]

They backed off because he is an uppity black guy who was yacking about his snivel rights.

For the record he never once mentioned his "snivel rights", he stood for his god given unalienable rights.

[Book]

For the record he never once mentioned his "snivel rights", he stood for his god given unalienable rights.



http://slapblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Racist-Obama-Holder-300x219.jpg

One phone call and the NAACP and SPLC and ACLU and ADL and Justice Department would parachute lawyers from cargo planes on his street to defend his black ass. He knows it. The police know it. You know it. Everybody knows it.

::) get real...lol.

[Ares]

One phone call and the NAACP and SPLC and ACLU and ADL and Justice Department would parachute lawyers from cargo planes on his street to defend his black ass. He knows it. The police know it. You know it. Everybody knows it.

Oh I'm not denying that. Just stating he was never standing for his civil rights as they are inferior to god given rights. :)

[Joe King]

Did he actually use the term "color of law" to describe the officers purported racisim?

If so, the guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Ares]

Did he actually use the term "color of law" to describe the officers purported racisim?

If so, the guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

In U.S. law, the term color of denotes the “mere semblance of legal right”, the “pretense or appearance of” right; hence, an action done under color of law colors (adjusts) the law to the circumstance, yet said apparently legal action contravenes the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_%28law%29

[po boy]

Did he actually use the term "color of law" to describe the officers purported racisim?

If so, the guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

[Joe King]

I understand all of that. But that is not how he was using the term.

To know if they were acting under color of law, we'd have to know why the police did what they did. Video doesn't show that.

He says, "my child is not negro black or colored and so he is not under color of law". He makes no sense with that statement.

[Ares]

He says, "my child is not negro black or colored and so he is not under color of law. He makes no sense with that statement.

What he's saying is that his child is outside their jurisdiction.

Negro, black, or colored are all terms that were used to describe blacks. He's saying his child isn't any of those definitions and so does not follow under the color of law.

[po boy]

I was just pulling up color for those not in the know and I agree he was using the term incorrectly.

If it was indeed his and not the states child even though he used the term incorrectly it is possible they were acting under color of law.

I read a study put out by the FBI in which by number police department across the nation committed more criminal act than the civilians.

[Joe King]

What he's saying is that his child is outside their jurisdiction.

Negro, black, or colored are all terms that were used to describe blacks. He's saying his child isn't any of those definitions and so does not follow under the color of law.

Acting under color of law simply means a person in position of authority is abusing their authority. What does that have to do with his sons skin color?
ie the term "color of law" doesnt apply only to negros, blacks and coloreds.

To be acting under color of law, those officers would have to be "enforcing" a so-called law that doesn't actually exist.
What exactly are they doing in that video? ie what are they enforcing?

[Joe King]

I was just pulling up color for those not in the know and I agree he was using the term incorrectly.

If it was indeed his and not the states child even though he used the term incorrectly it is possible they were acting under color of law.

I read a study put out by the FBI in which by number police department across the nation committed more criminal act than the civilians.

I agree. Without more info about the laws in question it is hard to tell from the video alone exactly why the police are even there.

[Ares]

Acting under color of law simply means a person in position of authority is abusing their authority. What does that have to do with his sons skin color?
ie the term "color of law" doesnt apply only to negros, blacks and coloreds.

To be acting under color of law, those officers would have to be "enforcing" a so-called law that doesn't actually exist.
What exactly are they doing in that video? ie what are they enforcing?

That part I'm not sure on, After watching the video again. You are correct, I think he was just too worked up to say what he wanted coherently. Again an assumption on my part as he came off knowledgeable about common law.

No idea what caused the police to be involved in the first place.

[Joe King]

You are correct, I think he was just too worked up to say what he wanted coherently. And that be a fatal error when in his position.


No idea what caused the police to be involved in the first place. Wwithout knowing why they were there, that guy could be in the wrong for all we know.

I'm not saying he was, but we have no way of knowing.

BTW, what is a Moar? Or however it's spelled.

[Ares]

BTW, what is a Moar?Or however it's spelled.

Here is what a Moor is:

The description Moors has referred to several historic and modern populations of Berber, Black African and Arab descent from Northern Africa, some of whom came to conquer and occupy the Iberian Peninsula for nearly 800 years. At that time they were Muslim, although earlier the people had followed other religions. They called the territory Al Andalus, comprising most of what is now Spain and Portugal. There is strong evidence showing that the moors were mostly Black African muslims from North and West Africa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors

[Awoke]

Tagging

10 chars

[Awoke]

Regardless if the kid has an SS number or not, that guy had balls. He's lucky he didn't get tazed and have his camera destroyed.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

This was a very interesting video. You have to listen closely, there are a few key moments.


Key Moment #1) "I am not colored, black, or negro. I am a Moor"

Key Moment #2) "You are kidnapping an individual. This is human trafficking. I am not a 14th amendment citizen."


However, parts of this are weird. He starts complaining that this is, "Like the inquisition". Wasn't the inquisition directly following the conquest of the Moors?

The other weird part is when he mentions 1492 - an attempt to play on white guilt. However, at that point in time, the Moors had just wrapped up a 700 year occupation of southern Europe. Anyone who knew a lick of history could turn the attempted guilt trip back against him.


Conclusion:

Yes, he played his cards correctly, but in a very hypocritical manner.

[iOWNme]

This guy envoked his Rights from the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Charter. (Which is modeled after the Communist Soviet Constitution from the 1920's)

This guy is a FOOL.

He was smart enough to not want Civil Rights, but dumb enough to want the United Nations 'Human Rights'? Although maybe he knows something we dont, because they weren't willing to do anything to him once he mentioned it. Maybe all we have to do is mention the UN, and Cops and Judges will bow to our word.... LOL