• =?UTF-8?Q?Another_Blabbermouth_classic=F0=9F=98=84?=

    From risky biz@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 2 14:27:19 2023
    Blabbermouth, 12/29/22: 'By the way, since when do municipal authorities have the authority to declare martial law? That's news to me.'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/8XAnuMbPCgAJ

    Blabbermouth, 12/30/22: 'I have a Juris Doctor from a common law jurisdiction and I have been studying Canadian and US comparative law for over 30 years. The fact that you think you know more about common law than I do is entirely consistent with your
    delusion that you have a high IQ.'

    Blabbermouth, 12/30/22: 'So show me and this group the common law decision(s) that support your contention that "municipal authorities" have the authority to declare martial law. I am confident in saying no such common law exists.'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/YxZm1FcWCwAJ

    Blabbermouth, 1/2/23: 'No, they don't "effectively declare martial law." What a stupid comment. They request it from someone who has the authority, and it is up to the person with that authority to grant the request or not. You are excruciatingly dumb.
    Municipal authorities do not have the authority to declare martial law in the US, but you are too immature to admit you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about, as usual.'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/8PmE2i_hCwAJ

    Blabbermouth, 1/2/23: 'when the mayor of Bumfuk, USA unilaterally declares martial law, which riskytard claims is well within his or her authority to do. That's what he said, so it must be true! Riskytard has a high IQ, y'know. He said so himself. Such a
    brilliant legal mind!' https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/_EDzujn2EUw/m/FfU_J2vlCwAJ




    'The Great Chicago Fire was a conflagration that burned in the American city of Chicago during October 8–10, 1871.

    On October 11, 1871, General Philip H. Sheridan came quickly to the aid of the city and was placed in charge by a proclamation, given by mayor Roswell B. Mason:

    "The Preservation of the Good Order and Peace of the city is hereby intrusted to Lieut. General P.H. Sheridan, U.S. Army."[9]

    To protect the city from looting and violence, the city was put under martial law for two weeks under Gen. Sheridan's command structure with a mix of regular troops, militia units, police, and a specially organized civilian group "First Regiment of
    Chicago Volunteers." Former Lieutenant-Governor William Bross, and part owner of the Tribune, later recollected his response to the arrival of Gen. Sheridan and his soldiers:

    "Never did deeper emotions of joy overcome me. Thank God, those most dear to me and the city as well are safe."

    For two weeks Sheridan's men patrolled the streets, guarded the relief warehouses, and enforced other regulations. On October 24 the troops were relieved of their duties and the volunteers were mustered out of service.'
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chicago_Fire

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From BillB@21:1/5 to risky biz on Mon Jan 2 15:49:48 2023
    On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 2:27:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
    Blabbermouth, 12/29/22: 'By the way, since when do municipal authorities have the authority to declare martial law? That's news to me.'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/8XAnuMbPCgAJ

    Blabbermouth, 12/30/22: 'I have a Juris Doctor from a common law jurisdiction and I have been studying Canadian and US comparative law for over 30 years. The fact that you think you know more about common law than I do is entirely consistent with your
    delusion that you have a high IQ.'

    Blabbermouth, 12/30/22: 'So show me and this group the common law decision(s) that support your contention that "municipal authorities" have the authority to declare martial law. I am confident in saying no such common law exists.'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/YxZm1FcWCwAJ

    Blabbermouth, 1/2/23: 'No, they don't "effectively declare martial law." What a stupid comment. They request it from someone who has the authority, and it is up to the person with that authority to grant the request or not. You are excruciatingly dumb.
    Municipal authorities do not have the authority to declare martial law in the US, but you are too immature to admit you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about, as usual.'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/8PmE2i_hCwAJ

    Blabbermouth, 1/2/23: 'when the mayor of Bumfuk, USA unilaterally declares martial law, which riskytard claims is well within his or her authority to do. That's what he said, so it must be true! Riskytard has a high IQ, y'know. He said so himself. Such
    a brilliant legal mind!'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/_EDzujn2EUw/m/FfU_J2vlCwAJ




    'The Great Chicago Fire was a conflagration that burned in the American city of Chicago during October 8–10, 1871.

    On October 11, 1871, General Philip H. Sheridan came quickly to the aid of the city and was placed in charge by a proclamation, given by mayor Roswell B. Mason:

    "The Preservation of the Good Order and Peace of the city is hereby intrusted to Lieut. General P.H. Sheridan, U.S. Army."[9]

    To protect the city from looting and violence, the city was put under martial law for two weeks under Gen. Sheridan's command structure with a mix of regular troops, militia units, police, and a specially organized civilian group "First Regiment of
    Chicago Volunteers." Former Lieutenant-Governor William Bross, and part owner of the Tribune, later recollected his response to the arrival of Gen. Sheridan and his soldiers:

    "Never did deeper emotions of joy overcome me. Thank God, those most dear to me and the city as well are safe."

    For two weeks Sheridan's men patrolled the streets, guarded the relief warehouses, and enforced other regulations. On October 24 the troops were relieved of their duties and the volunteers were mustered out of service.'
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chicago_Fire

    Had you taken my advice and researched how the common law changes over time and what it is trumped by then you wouldn't be making a fool of yourself again right now. I offered no opinion on what may or may not have been lawful 150 years ago (or if the
    example you provided was lawful at the time or tested in the courts). We were talking about the present, were we not?

    You still haven't explained how a declaration of martial law by the governor of a state suspends a citizen's constitutional rights (save for the narrow exception explicitly mentioned in the Constitution) and makes it permissible to use lethal force
    against someone suspected of theft. Do you now deny that you said my answer to Jerry about the legally permissible course of action in the scenario he asked about would not apply under martial law (which was never declared anyway)?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From risky biz@21:1/5 to BillB on Mon Jan 2 16:19:55 2023
    On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:49:52 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
    On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 2:27:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
    Blabbermouth, 12/29/22: 'By the way, since when do municipal authorities have the authority to declare martial law? That's news to me.'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/8XAnuMbPCgAJ

    Blabbermouth, 12/30/22: 'I have a Juris Doctor from a common law jurisdiction and I have been studying Canadian and US comparative law for over 30 years. The fact that you think you know more about common law than I do is entirely consistent with
    your delusion that you have a high IQ.'

    Blabbermouth, 12/30/22: 'So show me and this group the common law decision(s) that support your contention that "municipal authorities" have the authority to declare martial law. I am confident in saying no such common law exists.'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/YxZm1FcWCwAJ

    Blabbermouth, 1/2/23: 'No, they don't "effectively declare martial law." What a stupid comment. They request it from someone who has the authority, and it is up to the person with that authority to grant the request or not. You are excruciatingly
    dumb. Municipal authorities do not have the authority to declare martial law in the US, but you are too immature to admit you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about, as usual.'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/8PmE2i_hCwAJ

    Blabbermouth, 1/2/23: 'when the mayor of Bumfuk, USA unilaterally declares martial law, which riskytard claims is well within his or her authority to do. That's what he said, so it must be true! Riskytard has a high IQ, y'know. He said so himself.
    Such a brilliant legal mind!'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/_EDzujn2EUw/m/FfU_J2vlCwAJ




    'The Great Chicago Fire was a conflagration that burned in the American city of Chicago during October 8–10, 1871.

    On October 11, 1871, General Philip H. Sheridan came quickly to the aid of the city and was placed in charge by a proclamation, given by mayor Roswell B. Mason:

    "The Preservation of the Good Order and Peace of the city is hereby intrusted to Lieut. General P.H. Sheridan, U.S. Army."[9]

    To protect the city from looting and violence, the city was put under martial law for two weeks under Gen. Sheridan's command structure with a mix of regular troops, militia units, police, and a specially organized civilian group "First Regiment of
    Chicago Volunteers." Former Lieutenant-Governor William Bross, and part owner of the Tribune, later recollected his response to the arrival of Gen. Sheridan and his soldiers:

    "Never did deeper emotions of joy overcome me. Thank God, those most dear to me and the city as well are safe."

    For two weeks Sheridan's men patrolled the streets, guarded the relief warehouses, and enforced other regulations. On October 24 the troops were relieved of their duties and the volunteers were mustered out of service.'
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chicago_Fire
    Had you taken my advice and researched how the common law changes over time and what it is trumped by then you wouldn't be making a fool of yourself again right now. I offered no opinion on what may or may not have been lawful 150 years ago (or if the
    example you provided was lawful at the time or tested in the courts). We were talking about the present, were we not?

    You still haven't explained how a declaration of martial law by the governor of a state suspends a citizen's constitutional rights (save for the narrow exception explicitly mentioned in the Constitution) and makes it permissible to use lethal force
    against someone suspected of theft. Do you now deny that you said my answer to Jerry about the legally permissible course of action in the scenario he asked about would not apply under martial law (which was never declared anyway)?


    You've already lost six ways to Sunday, fool. Would you like some help getting off your back and upright again so you can slowly scuttle away on your cute little clawed feet?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From BillB@21:1/5 to risky biz on Mon Jan 2 16:26:10 2023
    On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:19:58 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
    On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:49:52 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
    On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 2:27:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
    Blabbermouth, 12/29/22: 'By the way, since when do municipal authorities have the authority to declare martial law? That's news to me.'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/8XAnuMbPCgAJ

    Blabbermouth, 12/30/22: 'I have a Juris Doctor from a common law jurisdiction and I have been studying Canadian and US comparative law for over 30 years. The fact that you think you know more about common law than I do is entirely consistent with
    your delusion that you have a high IQ.'

    Blabbermouth, 12/30/22: 'So show me and this group the common law decision(s) that support your contention that "municipal authorities" have the authority to declare martial law. I am confident in saying no such common law exists.'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/YxZm1FcWCwAJ

    Blabbermouth, 1/2/23: 'No, they don't "effectively declare martial law." What a stupid comment. They request it from someone who has the authority, and it is up to the person with that authority to grant the request or not. You are excruciatingly
    dumb. Municipal authorities do not have the authority to declare martial law in the US, but you are too immature to admit you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about, as usual.'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/8PmE2i_hCwAJ

    Blabbermouth, 1/2/23: 'when the mayor of Bumfuk, USA unilaterally declares martial law, which riskytard claims is well within his or her authority to do. That's what he said, so it must be true! Riskytard has a high IQ, y'know. He said so himself.
    Such a brilliant legal mind!'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/_EDzujn2EUw/m/FfU_J2vlCwAJ




    'The Great Chicago Fire was a conflagration that burned in the American city of Chicago during October 8–10, 1871.

    On October 11, 1871, General Philip H. Sheridan came quickly to the aid of the city and was placed in charge by a proclamation, given by mayor Roswell B. Mason:

    "The Preservation of the Good Order and Peace of the city is hereby intrusted to Lieut. General P.H. Sheridan, U.S. Army."[9]

    To protect the city from looting and violence, the city was put under martial law for two weeks under Gen. Sheridan's command structure with a mix of regular troops, militia units, police, and a specially organized civilian group "First Regiment of
    Chicago Volunteers." Former Lieutenant-Governor William Bross, and part owner of the Tribune, later recollected his response to the arrival of Gen. Sheridan and his soldiers:

    "Never did deeper emotions of joy overcome me. Thank God, those most dear to me and the city as well are safe."

    For two weeks Sheridan's men patrolled the streets, guarded the relief warehouses, and enforced other regulations. On October 24 the troops were relieved of their duties and the volunteers were mustered out of service.'
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chicago_Fire
    Had you taken my advice and researched how the common law changes over time and what it is trumped by then you wouldn't be making a fool of yourself again right now. I offered no opinion on what may or may not have been lawful 150 years ago (or if
    the example you provided was lawful at the time or tested in the courts). We were talking about the present, were we not?

    You still haven't explained how a declaration of martial law by the governor of a state suspends a citizen's constitutional rights (save for the narrow exception explicitly mentioned in the Constitution) and makes it permissible to use lethal force
    against someone suspected of theft. Do you now deny that you said my answer to Jerry about the legally permissible course of action in the scenario he asked about would not apply under martial law (which was never declared anyway)?
    You've already lost six ways to Sunday, fool. Would you like some help getting off your back and upright again so you can slowly scuttle away on your cute little clawed feet?

    In other words you have nothing. Stop making a fool of yourself. You can't shoot people for just running away from a theft. It is unconstitutional in the US. You should move to North Korea where you are more in synch with the philosophy of governance. In
    the US a human life is worth more than a pair of Nikes. Jesus, what a scumbag.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From risky biz@21:1/5 to BillB on Mon Jan 2 16:50:22 2023
    On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:26:13 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
    On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:19:58 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
    On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:49:52 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
    On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 2:27:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
    Blabbermouth, 12/29/22: 'By the way, since when do municipal authorities have the authority to declare martial law? That's news to me.'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/8XAnuMbPCgAJ

    Blabbermouth, 12/30/22: 'I have a Juris Doctor from a common law jurisdiction and I have been studying Canadian and US comparative law for over 30 years. The fact that you think you know more about common law than I do is entirely consistent with
    your delusion that you have a high IQ.'

    Blabbermouth, 12/30/22: 'So show me and this group the common law decision(s) that support your contention that "municipal authorities" have the authority to declare martial law. I am confident in saying no such common law exists.'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/YxZm1FcWCwAJ

    Blabbermouth, 1/2/23: 'No, they don't "effectively declare martial law." What a stupid comment. They request it from someone who has the authority, and it is up to the person with that authority to grant the request or not. You are excruciatingly
    dumb. Municipal authorities do not have the authority to declare martial law in the US, but you are too immature to admit you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about, as usual.'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/8PmE2i_hCwAJ

    Blabbermouth, 1/2/23: 'when the mayor of Bumfuk, USA unilaterally declares martial law, which riskytard claims is well within his or her authority to do. That's what he said, so it must be true! Riskytard has a high IQ, y'know. He said so himself.
    Such a brilliant legal mind!'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/_EDzujn2EUw/m/FfU_J2vlCwAJ




    'The Great Chicago Fire was a conflagration that burned in the American city of Chicago during October 8–10, 1871.

    On October 11, 1871, General Philip H. Sheridan came quickly to the aid of the city and was placed in charge by a proclamation, given by mayor Roswell B. Mason:

    "The Preservation of the Good Order and Peace of the city is hereby intrusted to Lieut. General P.H. Sheridan, U.S. Army."[9]

    To protect the city from looting and violence, the city was put under martial law for two weeks under Gen. Sheridan's command structure with a mix of regular troops, militia units, police, and a specially organized civilian group "First Regiment
    of Chicago Volunteers." Former Lieutenant-Governor William Bross, and part owner of the Tribune, later recollected his response to the arrival of Gen. Sheridan and his soldiers:

    "Never did deeper emotions of joy overcome me. Thank God, those most dear to me and the city as well are safe."

    For two weeks Sheridan's men patrolled the streets, guarded the relief warehouses, and enforced other regulations. On October 24 the troops were relieved of their duties and the volunteers were mustered out of service.'
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chicago_Fire
    Had you taken my advice and researched how the common law changes over time and what it is trumped by then you wouldn't be making a fool of yourself again right now. I offered no opinion on what may or may not have been lawful 150 years ago (or if
    the example you provided was lawful at the time or tested in the courts). We were talking about the present, were we not?

    You still haven't explained how a declaration of martial law by the governor of a state suspends a citizen's constitutional rights (save for the narrow exception explicitly mentioned in the Constitution) and makes it permissible to use lethal force
    against someone suspected of theft. Do you now deny that you said my answer to Jerry about the legally permissible course of action in the scenario he asked about would not apply under martial law (which was never declared anyway)?

    You've already lost six ways to Sunday, fool. Would you like some help getting off your back and upright again so you can slowly scuttle away on your cute little clawed feet?


    ~ In other words you have nothing. Stop making a fool of yourself. You can't shoot people for just running away from a theft. It is unconstitutional in the US. You should move to North Korea where you are more in synch with the philosophy of governance.
    In the US a human life is worth more than a pair of Nikes. Jesus, what a scumbag.


    Uh, oh! Trick move. We weren't discussing a declaration of martial law due to the inabilty of a local police force to stop looting and rioting and maintain minimal public order. We were discussing an individual fleeing arrest for a simple theft. Did it
    throw anyone? LOL.

    BEEP!!! BEEP!!! BEEP!!!BEEP!!! BEEP!!! BEEP!!!BEEP!!! BEEP!!! BEEP!!!BEEP!!! BEEP!!! BEEP!!!
    Watch it- BillBlabbermouth backing up!

    BEEP!!! BEEP!!! BEEP!!!BEEP!!! BEEP!!! BEEP!!!BEEP!!! BEEP!!! BEEP!!!BEEP!!! BEEP!!! BEEP!!!
    Watch it- BillBlabbermouth backing up!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From risky biz@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 2 17:00:28 2023
    ~ On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:49:52 PM UTC-8, Blabbermouth wrote:

    ~ You still haven't explained how a declaration of martial law by the governor of a state suspends a citizen's constitutional rights (save for the narrow exception explicitly mentioned in the Constitution) and makes it permissible to use lethal force
    against someone suspected of theft. Do you now deny that you said my answer to Jerry about the legally permissible course of action in the scenario he asked about would not apply under martial law (which was never declared anyway)?


    Subsequent to the Great Galveston hurricane, to restore public order, Mayor [M-A-Y-O-R] Walter C. Jones declared martial law. Forty-Three civilians tried by court-martial in a military tribunal were convicted, and ordered shot.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From risky biz@21:1/5 to BillB on Mon Jan 2 16:56:18 2023
    On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:49:52 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
    On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 2:27:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
    Blabbermouth, 12/29/22: 'By the way, since when do municipal authorities have the authority to declare martial law? That's news to me.'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/8XAnuMbPCgAJ

    Blabbermouth, 12/30/22: 'I have a Juris Doctor from a common law jurisdiction and I have been studying Canadian and US comparative law for over 30 years. The fact that you think you know more about common law than I do is entirely consistent with
    your delusion that you have a high IQ.'

    Blabbermouth, 12/30/22: 'So show me and this group the common law decision(s) that support your contention that "municipal authorities" have the authority to declare martial law. I am confident in saying no such common law exists.'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/YxZm1FcWCwAJ

    Blabbermouth, 1/2/23: 'No, they don't "effectively declare martial law." What a stupid comment. They request it from someone who has the authority, and it is up to the person with that authority to grant the request or not. You are excruciatingly
    dumb. Municipal authorities do not have the authority to declare martial law in the US, but you are too immature to admit you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about, as usual.'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/8PmE2i_hCwAJ

    Blabbermouth, 1/2/23: 'when the mayor of Bumfuk, USA unilaterally declares martial law, which riskytard claims is well within his or her authority to do. That's what he said, so it must be true! Riskytard has a high IQ, y'know. He said so himself.
    Such a brilliant legal mind!'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/_EDzujn2EUw/m/FfU_J2vlCwAJ




    'The Great Chicago Fire was a conflagration that burned in the American city of Chicago during October 8–10, 1871.

    On October 11, 1871, General Philip H. Sheridan came quickly to the aid of the city and was placed in charge by a proclamation, given by mayor Roswell B. Mason:

    "The Preservation of the Good Order and Peace of the city is hereby intrusted to Lieut. General P.H. Sheridan, U.S. Army."[9]

    To protect the city from looting and violence, the city was put under martial law for two weeks under Gen. Sheridan's command structure with a mix of regular troops, militia units, police, and a specially organized civilian group "First Regiment of
    Chicago Volunteers." Former Lieutenant-Governor William Bross, and part owner of the Tribune, later recollected his response to the arrival of Gen. Sheridan and his soldiers:

    "Never did deeper emotions of joy overcome me. Thank God, those most dear to me and the city as well are safe."

    For two weeks Sheridan's men patrolled the streets, guarded the relief warehouses, and enforced other regulations. On October 24 the troops were relieved of their duties and the volunteers were mustered out of service.'
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chicago_Fire


    ~ Had you taken my advice and researched how the common law changes over time and what it is trumped by then you wouldn't be making a fool of yourself again right now. I offered no opinion on what may or may not have been lawful 150 years ago (or if the
    example you provided was lawful at the time or tested in the courts). We were talking about the present, were we not?


    What you were talking about is quite well documented by my quotes of your own words above. You're whipping out a stopwatch now becaise you didn't know WTF you were talking about.



    You still haven't explained how a declaration of martial law by the governor of a state suspends a citizen's constitutional rights (save for the narrow exception explicitly mentioned in the Constitution) and makes it permissible to use lethal force
    against someone suspected of theft. Do you now deny that you said my answer to Jerry about the legally permissible course of action in the scenario he asked about would not apply under martial law (which was never declared anyway)?


    Stick a fork in yourself. You're done.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From BillB@21:1/5 to risky biz on Mon Jan 2 21:01:56 2023
    On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 5:00:31 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
    ~ On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:49:52 PM UTC-8, Blabbermouth wrote:

    ~ You still haven't explained how a declaration of martial law by the governor of a state suspends a citizen's constitutional rights (save for the narrow exception explicitly mentioned in the Constitution) and makes it permissible to use lethal force
    against someone suspected of theft. Do you now deny that you said my answer to Jerry about the legally permissible course of action in the scenario he asked about would not apply under martial law (which was never declared anyway)?


    Subsequent to the Great Galveston hurricane, to restore public order, Mayor [M-A-Y-O-R] Walter C. Jones declared martial law. Forty-Three civilians tried by court-martial in a military tribunal were convicted, and ordered shot.

    Do you understand that none of that matters once it is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, Mr. Common Law?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From BillB@21:1/5 to risky biz on Mon Jan 2 21:29:28 2023
    On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:50:25 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
    On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:26:13 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
    On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:19:58 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
    On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:49:52 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
    On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 2:27:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
    Blabbermouth, 12/29/22: 'By the way, since when do municipal authorities have the authority to declare martial law? That's news to me.'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/8XAnuMbPCgAJ

    Blabbermouth, 12/30/22: 'I have a Juris Doctor from a common law jurisdiction and I have been studying Canadian and US comparative law for over 30 years. The fact that you think you know more about common law than I do is entirely consistent
    with your delusion that you have a high IQ.'

    Blabbermouth, 12/30/22: 'So show me and this group the common law decision(s) that support your contention that "municipal authorities" have the authority to declare martial law. I am confident in saying no such common law exists.'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/YxZm1FcWCwAJ

    Blabbermouth, 1/2/23: 'No, they don't "effectively declare martial law." What a stupid comment. They request it from someone who has the authority, and it is up to the person with that authority to grant the request or not. You are
    excruciatingly dumb. Municipal authorities do not have the authority to declare martial law in the US, but you are too immature to admit you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about, as usual.'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/8PmE2i_hCwAJ

    Blabbermouth, 1/2/23: 'when the mayor of Bumfuk, USA unilaterally declares martial law, which riskytard claims is well within his or her authority to do. That's what he said, so it must be true! Riskytard has a high IQ, y'know. He said so
    himself. Such a brilliant legal mind!'
    https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/_EDzujn2EUw/m/FfU_J2vlCwAJ




    'The Great Chicago Fire was a conflagration that burned in the American city of Chicago during October 8–10, 1871.

    On October 11, 1871, General Philip H. Sheridan came quickly to the aid of the city and was placed in charge by a proclamation, given by mayor Roswell B. Mason:

    "The Preservation of the Good Order and Peace of the city is hereby intrusted to Lieut. General P.H. Sheridan, U.S. Army."[9]

    To protect the city from looting and violence, the city was put under martial law for two weeks under Gen. Sheridan's command structure with a mix of regular troops, militia units, police, and a specially organized civilian group "First
    Regiment of Chicago Volunteers." Former Lieutenant-Governor William Bross, and part owner of the Tribune, later recollected his response to the arrival of Gen. Sheridan and his soldiers:

    "Never did deeper emotions of joy overcome me. Thank God, those most dear to me and the city as well are safe."

    For two weeks Sheridan's men patrolled the streets, guarded the relief warehouses, and enforced other regulations. On October 24 the troops were relieved of their duties and the volunteers were mustered out of service.'
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chicago_Fire
    Had you taken my advice and researched how the common law changes over time and what it is trumped by then you wouldn't be making a fool of yourself again right now. I offered no opinion on what may or may not have been lawful 150 years ago (or
    if the example you provided was lawful at the time or tested in the courts). We were talking about the present, were we not?

    You still haven't explained how a declaration of martial law by the governor of a state suspends a citizen's constitutional rights (save for the narrow exception explicitly mentioned in the Constitution) and makes it permissible to use lethal
    force against someone suspected of theft. Do you now deny that you said my answer to Jerry about the legally permissible course of action in the scenario he asked about would not apply under martial law (which was never declared anyway)?

    You've already lost six ways to Sunday, fool. Would you like some help getting off your back and upright again so you can slowly scuttle away on your cute little clawed feet?
    ~ In other words you have nothing. Stop making a fool of yourself. You can't shoot people for just running away from a theft. It is unconstitutional in the US. You should move to North Korea where you are more in synch with the philosophy of governance.
    In the US a human life is worth more than a pair of Nikes. Jesus, what a scumbag.


    Uh, oh! Trick move. We weren't discussing a declaration of martial law due to the inabilty of a local police force to stop looting and rioting and maintain minimal public order. We were discussing an individual fleeing arrest for a simple theft. Did it
    throw anyone? LOL.

    BEEP!!! BEEP!!! BEEP!!!BEEP!!! BEEP!!! BEEP!!!BEEP!!! BEEP!!! BEEP!!!BEEP!!! BEEP!!! BEEP!!!
    Watch it- BillBlabbermouth backing up!

    BEEP!!! BEEP!!! BEEP!!!BEEP!!! BEEP!!! BEEP!!!BEEP!!! BEEP!!! BEEP!!!BEEP!!! BEEP!!! BEEP!!!
    Watch it- BillBlabbermouth backing up!

    I haven't backed up on anything, liar. What we were talking about (before you tried to change the subject repeatedly) is the answer I gave to Jerry's question about what a cop in the Buffalo snowstorm should do if someone was caught looting and was
    resisting arrest. This is the answer I gave:

    "The cop should use a continuum of escalating force that meets the legal test of objective reasonableness, up to but not including deadly force (unless the cop has probable cause to reasonably believe the suspect poses a significant and imminent threat
    of serious bodily harm to law enforcement officers or the public). Once the limit of objective reasonableness is met (and no significant and imminent threat of serious bodily harm is present) he or she should just let the suspect escape."

    To which you, in your usual moronic fashion, replied: "There's zero chance that your IQ is not lower than that of anyone else who posts here."

    So now that I have shown you the seminal Supreme Court case on the issue of using lethal force on an escaping felon, what do you have to say for yourself? Is the law not almost exactly as I stated it off the top of my head? You don't seem to understand
    that what some guy did 150 years ago on his own volition means nothing in the context of current US law.

    Then, when you were embarrassed by the fact that I schooled on US law, you inexplicably blurted out that what I said doesn't apply during martial law (even though martial law was not declared in Buffalo and had NOTHING to do with Jerry's question or your
    criticism of my answer). Let's assume for the sake of argument the absurd scenario where martial law WAS declared in Buffalo over some sporadic looting incidents (which would NEVER happen except in your totalitarian dreams). Are you still asserting that
    the constitutional law expressed in Tennessee v. Garner would somehow no longer apply?

    How many times have you dodged this question??

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)