TexasCHLforum.com

rbwhatever1 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Kkpsiknl wrote:Don't forget that MM has armed body guards. Good enough to protect him, just not you or I.

One wonders how committed they are to that protection........ like would they take a bullet for him?

I'm thinking they could all get behind him in a shootout.

A rifle squad could hide there.
Chas.

Don't see it happening. Just more hot air from a blowhard. In the first place there is no legal or Constitutional basis for it. States are already starting to ignore Federal laws with marijuana decriminalization. This would be something not only to ignore but actively oppose. There is no way the states are going to allow a huge Federal intrusion like a take over of local law enforcement. The push back would be enormous and and bad as the courts are I highly doubt the courts would side with the Feds.

In any case, the Federal government has never found any problem it couldn't make worse. A Federal takeover of law enforcement makes no sense if the reason is to improve policing, so that obviously is a smokescreen. A Federal police force would be less accountable and more likely to abuse police power. Geez, just look at the DEA and BATF. This is all about control and the elimination of State's rights and I don't see the states handing the keys to the Feds.

VMI77 wrote:Don't see it happening. Just more hot air from a blowhard. In the first place there is no legal or Constitutional basis for it. States are already starting to ignore Federal laws with marijuana decriminalization. This would be something not only to ignore but actively oppose. There is no way the states are going to allow a huge Federal intrusion like a take over of local law enforcement. The push back would be enormous and and bad as the courts are I highly doubt the courts would side with the Feds.

In any case, the Federal government has never found any problem it couldn't make worse. A Federal takeover of law enforcement makes no sense if the reason is to improve policing, so that obviously is a smokescreen. A Federal police force would be less accountable and more likely to abuse police power. Geez, just look at the DEA and BATF. This is all about control and the elimination of State's rights and I don't see the states handing the keys to the Feds.

DOJ partners with Ft Worth Police Dept. http://www.justice.gov/usao/txn/PressRe ... ative.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Kkpsiknl wrote:Don't forget that MM has armed body guards. Good enough to protect him, just not you or I.

One wonders how committed they are to that protection........ like would they take a bullet for him?

I'm thinking they could all get behind him in a shootout.

A rifle squad could hide there.
Chas.

In the movies, the cowboy would shoot his horse so he had something to hide behind when the Indians attacked.

Suggesting that we solve a state/local issue by bringing in the Federal government is a bit ludicrous. At best, you'd swap one set of problems for another.

However, suggesting that perhaps the public is fed up enough and tensions are getting high enough that *something* should be done is pretty valid in my mind. To me, the solution is pretty obvious - it's body cameras. After implementing mandatory cameras on LEOs, we know that the use of force will decrease and community complaints will decrease. Cost of the cameras is probably a drop in the bucked compared to just 1-2 years of lawsuits... I don't think you can put an end to all bad behavior, but people tend to straighten up when they know that they'll be held accountable..

My sheriff has already said that he and all his deputies would be waiting at the county line to hook up any Feds that decide to cross to cause trouble.

That should work out well.

MeMelYup wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Don't see it happening. Just more hot air from a blowhard. In the first place there is no legal or Constitutional basis for it. States are already starting to ignore Federal laws with marijuana decriminalization. This would be something not only to ignore but actively oppose. There is no way the states are going to allow a huge Federal intrusion like a take over of local law enforcement. The push back would be enormous and and bad as the courts are I highly doubt the courts would side with the Feds.

In any case, the Federal government has never found any problem it couldn't make worse. A Federal takeover of law enforcement makes no sense if the reason is to improve policing, so that obviously is a smokescreen. A Federal police force would be less accountable and more likely to abuse police power. Geez, just look at the DEA and BATF. This is all about control and the elimination of State's rights and I don't see the states handing the keys to the Feds.

DOJ partners with Ft Worth Police Dept. http://www.justice.gov/usao/txn/PressRe ... ative.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As part of a larger effort, the National Initiative team will work with each pilot site to assess the police-community relationship as well as develop a detailed site-specific plan that will enhance procedural justice, reduce bias and support reconciliation in communities where trust has been eroded.

That's not a takeover of anything. That's meaningless public relations hooey with zero obligations to do anything. There is no recourse for the Feds and no mechanism to make the city do anything. The Feds have actively monitored PDs under court order...that's a little closer....but even those weren't takeovers.

Pawpaw wrote: In the movies, the cowboy would shoot his horse so he had something to hide behind when the Indians attacked. [ Image ]

I don't remember any movie where that happened. I can't imagine it either. Loosing your horse could also mean death. I've seen them hide behind a dead horse, but never seen a cowboy shoot it himself. Do you have one in mind?

C-dub wrote:

Pawpaw wrote: In the movies, the cowboy would shoot his horse so he had something to hide behind when the Indians attacked. [ Image ]

I don't remember any movie where that happened. I can't imagine it either. Loosing your horse could also mean death. I've seen them hide behind a dead horse, but never seen a cowboy shoot it himself. Do you have one in mind?

I can't place the movie, but I'm sure I've seen it. I'll let you know if I find it.

Pawpaw wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Kkpsiknl wrote:Don't forget that MM has armed body guards. Good enough to protect him, just not you or I.

One wonders how committed they are to that protection........ like would they take a bullet for him?

I'm thinking they could all get behind him in a shootout.

A rifle squad could hide there.
Chas.

In the movies, the cowboy would shoot his horse so he had something to hide behind when the Indians attacked. [ Image ]

If you ever shot a horse in front of MM he would steal the poor animal's feed bag before the carcass hit the ground!

C-dub wrote:

Pawpaw wrote: In the movies, the cowboy would shoot his horse so he had something to hide behind when the Indians attacked. [ Image ]

I don't remember any movie where that happened. I can't imagine it either. Loosing your horse could also mean death. I've seen them hide behind a dead horse, but never seen a cowboy shoot it himself. Do you have one in mind?

Robert Duvall in Lonesome Dove shot his horse to hide behind when the Indians were chasing him. There are also eyewitness accounts of Custer at Little Bighorn ordering the horses be shot and stacked.