Friday, December 17, 2010

Contempt of cop?

I know I've linked to Popehat once already today, but for those of you who have been following the Joel Rosenberg case in Minneapolis, the conversation remains lively in the comments section of the lovely legal dissection posted there by Patrick last week.

It's about seventy-odd (some very odd) comments long now, but worth reading.


Ancient Woodsman said...

What I put there: It bothers me here as it always has that both zombies and tyrants seem to think that free men need a reason to do anything.

“I’m curious…what was the necessity of carrying a firearm into the courthouse?”

Why would a free man need to explain – or even have – a necesssity for owning or carrying a firearm? Maybe no reason at all. He just wanted to. Period.

Clearly, there's something to be said for being in one of the most-restrictive states in the U.S. - on what the citizenry allow LE to do - a fact that is drilled in to our academy recruits. As a citizen first, I like it that way. Clearly, too bad the same can't be said about Minnesota.

Beaumont said...

On a side note, a troll apparently from MPD was impugning Rosenberg over at Uncle's blog. Unc outed him.

Crotalus (Dont Tread on Me) said...

Well, many cops ARE contemptible these days, what with their "respect my authoritah!" attitude and their own contempt for the laws they don't like.

aczarnowski said...

Alas, I fear this one will go the way of most here in MN (and the country at large). The powers that be will outlast the initial flare up and the embers will continue to simmer with little effect.

We have jobs to get to while their "work" is not impacted one bit by a flare up.