- Thread starter Forgetful Coyote
- Start date
Most of the colonies were religious settlements with an official religion established by English, French, and German immigrants. Our founding fathers understood very well the need for a "wall of separation".
Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness—and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;
...
Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly: That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess—and by argument to maintain—their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
- Thomas Jefferson, 1779
Is not the above a timeless philosophical redress to both those who would reason that our founding documents are out of date, and the current machinations of ISIS?
Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness—and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;
...
Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly: That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess—and by argument to maintain—their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
- Thomas Jefferson, 1779
Is not the above a timeless philosophical redress to both those who would reason that our founding documents are out of date, and the current machinations of ISIS?
Agreed. The Constitution is based on the understanding of human nature more so than an excercise of building a government. More than 2000 years of observing human nature and political philosophy are boiled down into a few pages within the COTUS. The depth of thought, knowledge and understanding exceeds by leaps and bounds that of our shallow, "in the moment", leaders of today. Govt is people and its form can take all of the vices or virtues as exampled by the simple tales of Aesops fables.
Without specifically enumerating or denying specific freedoms and threats to those freedoms the COTUS, if followed, ensures their protection. Its like a maze that once you start off the straight path results in a trap that prevents your further infringement of a freedom. Where things go wrong is when people begin to "interpret" based on their own present experience or bias. The battle over the Bill of Rights was concerned with creating a condition where the assumption is made that COTUS only protects specified rights. Thankfully the BOR was included because some envisioned that despite the restrictions of the COTUS on govt power they knew human nature would result in office holders that rather than protect would work to defeat the freedoms of the people in order to increase their power.
Last edited:
As an add to the above......
Because of what the Founders knew and why they framed the COTUS as they did to restrain the more base aspects of human nature this is specifically why when someone states the problem with the Constitution is that it is to wit "more a document of negative freedoms" you should view that person with great suspicion and concern for what their intentions are.
Because of what the Founders knew and why they framed the COTUS as they did to restrain the more base aspects of human nature this is specifically why when someone states the problem with the Constitution is that it is to wit "more a document of negative freedoms" you should view that person with great suspicion and concern for what their intentions are.
Yes. Two excellent posts. Restraining government power is the core about which the Constitution was built precisely because the founders understood human nature. Their classical education far better prepared them to govern than our "modern" education by leaps and bounds. If our modern "leadership" were to be present in those debates in Independence hall and then the state ratifying conventions, they would truly be completely lost and their childlike reasoning would be discarded by the grown ups in the room.
If you want more evidence of this, and a sad commentary on truly how far "education" has fallen among learned men we rely upon for leadership, then read this, George Washington's farewell address to the nation at the end of his second term:
Papers of George Washington
Can you imagine such a speech being given today, with its lofty philosophical ideas and nuanced understanding of the relationship between citizen and government ? It might as well be written in Greek for as well as it would be understood, even for our own Congress.
I can only shake my head at some of the modern Constitutional scholars who attempt to fit the ideas of the Constitution into their own schemes by calling it a "living document", as if human nature has changed. It hasn't, and if anything modern society only encourages the baser qualities of human nature as the restraining influence of a shared morality has been broken down, as was on full display in Ferguson.
The fatal flaw in the longevity of our Constitutional Republic is also the very thing that produces freedom, the minimum powers the Constitution delegates to government. All other restraint must come from the self restraint and morality of the citizenry. The very fabric of our society hinges on it therefore we must encourage it at every turn. Multiculturalism and moral relativism is the only thing this republic cannot survive; the rule of law here does not give the government the kind of totalitarian authorities necessary to control a society that does not naturally restrain themselves through shared morality and common belief in "American values." This is simultaneously the greatest strength and greatest weakness of our system, the keystone of the architecture of freedom but also the Achilles heel. We have freedom, and we must be good or we will be lost.
That is the core of what this thread is about. We are seeing these opposing forces at play in this incident in Ferguson, which could have really happened in almost any city in America, unfortunately.
As usual, the founders well understood these things as a matter of course, and even then were concerned about us, the citizen, upholding our end of the bargain:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
--John Adams
Yes I do. Although my wording may have been literal, the intent has been clearly stated and defined. The SCOTUS has also used the phrase many times.
And I have never seen so many people willing to disrespect their country as so many here have. Face it if the current President cured cancer, you all would accuse him of contributing to over population. You all hold Putin in higher regard. I find that disgusting.
For the record there are many things he has done with which I disagree. But I am not willing disrespect my country because of it. We used to be a nation comprised of individuals. We have become a bunch of individuals without loyalty to anything but themselves.
I trust you mean that this exact phrase is not in US Constitution, but it's meaning is nonetheless specifically represented, that the founding fathers repeated this notion many times over outside of the constitution to be clear about what is meant, and SCOTUS and most constitutional scholars collectively agree on its existence within the constitution (though maybe not its powers and limits).
We don't have to get knee deep to see the first reference to it, in the 1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Article VI states "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Hopefully dissipating any confusion over precisely what the founding fathers meant, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them, asking why he would not proclaim national days of fasting and thanksgiving, as had been done by Washington and Adams before him. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which lead to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
In his Second Inaugural Address, delivered in March 1805:
"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the constitution independent of the powers of the general [i.e., federal] government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies."
In 1879 the phrase "wall of separation" became enshrined in constitutional law with Reynolds v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court opined that the Danbury letter "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment thus secured."
Madison is far more prolific in expounding on the separation of church and state:
The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State. (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together. (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).
To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself. (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).
The arguments are generally not about whether or not there exists a constitutional basis for a separation of church and state, but on its boundaries. On one side of the aisle we have a group denying its existence. On the other side we have those who hold the phrase (and the concept) as a pithy description of the constitutionally prescribed church-state arrangement, and it has become the sacred icon of a strict separatist dogma that champions a secular polity in which religious influences are systematically and coercively stripped from public life. They are equally vacuous.
Last edited:
For those of us that tuned out of Ferguson a long while back - is this still a thing? Are folks still in the street or is life more or less moving back to normal while they await the no bill from the GJ and then the Justice Dept to trump up a charge?
TIA
TIA
You equate loyalty to the federal government with loyalty to the nation. Be careful which side you take.
I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I get to decide who those enemies are, particularly on the domestic front.
And you're damned right I hold Vladimir Putin in higher regard than the shitstain sitting in the Oval Office. Putin at least has a pair.
Last edited:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
How are you at suck starting Harley's?
So you are a Justice on the SCOTUS? I am sorry I did not know.
Because in my opinion it goes way beyond personal disrespect, it is disrespect of the office.
Just for the record I don't normally start this shit. I am usually responding to a hateful or negative comment about the Pres. I will not respond if the original statement is not made. But if it is ok to make those comments, it should be ok to counter them. You know both sides of the story.
Mods I am done here and I am sorry if this got out of control.
Fair enough. Thanks for responding. This is a topic of personal interest to me. I am troubled by what is in my view an unfortunate misreading of the constitution on the role of the President. I believe such a misreading (or non-reading) is deleterious to the country, and serves to undermine the very necessary role a responsible citizen should undertake.
Commander-in-chief
Article 2, Section 2: "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States"
Chief Diplomat
Article 2, Section 2: "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls. . ."
Article 2, Section 3: ". . .he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers. . ."
Chief Administrator
Article 2, Section 1: "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
Chief Legislator
Article 1, Section 7: "Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law."
Article 2, Section 3: "He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient"
Chief Magistrate
Article 2, Section 3: ". . .he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed . . ."
Deferring, once again, to Mr Jefferson on the role of the citizen. This is a list I consider to be by no means exhaustive. The citizen is a role I deem to be, collectively, far more important than that of the President.
"No government can be maintained without the principle of fear as well as duty. Good men will obey the last, but bad ones the former only. If our government ever fails, it will be from this weakness." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1814.
"Every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society; and this is all the laws should enforce on him." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816. ME 15:24
"A good citizen should take his stand where the public authority marshals him." --Thomas Jefferson to Mme D'Auville, 1790. ME 8:16
"That a man owes no duty to which he is not urged by some impulsive feeling... is correct, if referred to the standard of general feeling in the given case, and not to the feeling of a single individual." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Law, 1814. ME 14:144
"Private charities as well as contributions to public purposes in proportion to everyone's circumstances are certainly among the duties we owe to society." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Christian, 1812. ME 13:134
"I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:282
Public Service
"There is a debt of service due from every man to his country, proportioned to the bounties which nature and fortune have measured to him." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Rutledge, 1796. ME 9:354
"No interests are dearer to men than those which ought to be secured to them by their form of government, and none deserve better of them than those who contribute to the amelioration of that form." --Thomas Jefferson to M. Ruelle, 1809.
"I never thought of questioning the free exercise of the right of my fellow citizens to marshal those whom they call into their service according to their fitness, nor ever presumed that they were not the best judges of that." --Thomas Jefferson to James Sullivan, 1797. ME 9:376
"Some men are born for the public. Nature by fitting them for the service of the human race on a broad scale, has stamped them with the evidences of her destination and their duty." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1803. ME 10:345
"There is sometimes an eminence of character on which society have such peculiar claims as to control the predilections of the individual for a particular walk of happiness, and restrain him to that alone arising from the present and future benedictions of mankind." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:348
"[I have] an ardent zeal to see this government (the idol of my soul) continue in good hands." --Thomas Jefferson to William Wirt, 1808. ME 11:424
"Though I... am myself duly impressed with a sense of the arduousness of government and the obligation those are under who are able to conduct it, yet I am also satisfied there is an order of geniuses above that obligation and therefore exempted from it. Nobody can conceive that nature ever intended to throw away a Newton upon the occupations of a crown. It would have been a prodigality for which even the conduct of Providence might have been arraigned, had he been by birth annexed to what was so far below him. Cooperating with nature in her ordinary economy, we should dispose of and employ the geniuses of men according to their several orders and degrees." --Thomas Jefferson to David Rittenhouse, 1778. Papers 2:202
"I do not mean... to testify a disposition to render no service but what is rigorously within my duty. I am the farthest in the world from this; it is a question I shall never ask myself; nothing making me more happy than to render any service in my power, of whatever description. But I wish only to be excused from intermeddling in business in which I have no skill, and should do more harm than good." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Osgood, 1785. ME 5:163, Papers 8:590
"I profess... so much of the Roman principle as to deem it honorable for the general of yesterday to act as a corporal today if his services can be useful to his country, holding that to be false pride which postpones the public good to any private or personal considerations." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1812. ME 13:186
"It will remain... to those now coming on the stage of public affairs to perfect what has been so well begun by those going off it." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Mann Randolph, Jr., 1787. ME 6:165
"The first of all our consolations is that of having faithfully fulfilled our duties; the next, the approbation and good will of those who have witnessed it." --Thomas Jefferson to James Fishback, 1809. ME 12:316
Demands of Public Service
"In a virtuous government... public offices are what they should be: burthens to those appointed to them, which it would be wrong to decline, though foreseen to bring with them intense labor and great private loss." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, 1779. Papers 2:298
"I acknowledge that such a debt [of service to my fellow-citizens] exists, that a tour of duty in whatever line he can be most useful to his country, is due from every individual. It is not easy perhaps to say of what length exactly that tour should be, but we may safely say of what length it should not be. Not of our whole life, for instance, for that would be to be born a slave--not even of a very large portion of it." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1793. ME 9:118
"Whether the state may command the political service of all its members to an indefinite extent, or if these be among the rights never wholly ceded to the public power, is a question which I do not find expressly decided in England... Nothing could so completely divest us of that liberty [which the bill of rights has made inviolable, and for the preservation of which our government has been charged] as the establishment of the opinion that the state has a perpetual right to the services of all its members. This to men of certain ways of thinking would be to annihilate the blessing of existence and to contradict the Giver of life, who gave it for happiness and not for wretchedness; and certainly, to such it were better that they had never been born." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1782. ME 4:196, Papers 6:185
Advantages of Public Service
"I will not say that public life is the line for making a fortune. But it furnishes a decent and honorable support, and places one's children on good grounds for public favor. The family of a beloved father will stand with the public on the most favorable ground of competition. Had General Washington left children, what would have been denied them?" --Thomas Jefferson to William Wirt, 1808. ME 11:424
"There are minds which can be pleased by honors and preferments; but I see nothing in them but envy and enmity. It is only necessary to possess them, to know how little they contribute to happiness, or rather how hostile they are to it." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Donald, 1788. ME 6:427
Disadvantages of Public Service
"Public offices were [not] made for private convenience." --Thomas Jefferson to the Duchesse d'Auville, 1790. ME 8:16
"The general idea is, that those who receive annual compensations should be constantly at their posts. Our constituents might not in the first moment consider: 1st, that we all have property to take care of, which we cannot abandon for temporary salaries; 2nd, that we have health to take care of, which at this season [i.e., summer] cannot be preserved at Washington; 3rd, that while at our separate homes our public duties are fully executed, and at much greater personal labor than while we are together, when a short conference saves a long letter." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1807. ME 11:351
"Politics [is] a subject I never loved and now hate." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1796.
Specific Areas of Service
"There [are moments] in which the aid of an able pen [is] important to place things in their just attitude." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1798. (*)
"It is the duty of every good citizen to use all the opportunities which occur to him for preserving documents relating to the history of our country." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh P. Taylor, 1823. ME 15:473
In Difficult Times
"The man who loves his country on its own account, and not merely for its trappings of interest or power, can never be divorced from it, can never refuse to come forward when he finds that she is engaged in dangers which he has the means of warding off." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1797. ME 9:407
"The patriot, like the Christian, must learn that to bear revilings and persecutions is a part of his duty; and in proportion as the trial is severe, firmness under it becomes more requisite and praiseworthy. It requires, indeed, self-command. But that will be fortified in proportion as the calls for its exercise are repeated." --Thomas Jefferson to James Sullivan, 1805. ME 11:73
Maintaining Vigilance
"Lethargy [is] the forerunner of death to the public liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.
"Let the eye of vigilance never be closed." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821. ME 15:326
"We, I hope, shall adhere to our republican government and keep it to its original principles by narrowly watching it." --Thomas Jefferson to ------, March 18, 1793. ME 9:45
"It behooves our citizens to be on their guard, to be firm in their principles, and full of confidence in themselves. We are able to preserve our self-government if we will but think so." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Mann Randolph, Jr., 1800. ME 10:151
"Very many and very meritorious were the worthy patriots who assisted in bringing back our government to its republican tack. To preserve it in that will require unremitting vigilance." --Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:388
"If our fellow-citizens, now solidly republican, will sacrifice favoritism towards men for the preservation of principle, we may hope that no divisions will again endanger a degeneracy in our government." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard M. Johnson, 1808. ME 12:10
"Our duty to ourselves, to posterity, and to mankind, call on us by every motive which is sacred or honorable, to watch over the safety of our beloved country during the troubles which agitate and convulse the residue of the world, and to sacrifice to that all personal and local considerations." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to New York Legislature, 1809. ME 16:362
"Come forward, then, and give us the aid of your talents and the weight of your character towards the new establishment of republicanism." --Thomas Jefferson to Robert Livingston, 1800.
"Love your neighbor as yourself, and your country more than yourself." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Jefferson Smith, 1825. ME 16:110
"Love your neighbor as yourself, and your country more than life." --Thomas Jefferson to T. J. Grotjan, 1824.
You assume too much. I, and others, place the Creator who endowed the rights (supposedly) protected by the Constitution above all else. No demands that you do likewise. Yep, some religions have a different point of view, but I assure you, if (when?) the US falls, the state sponsored religion will not be Christianity.
It does appear in the former Soviet Union's equivalent of our Constitution. Maybe we should find a copy and redraft ours to fit today's society.
That's what being banned for a month looks like. Anyone else want to push me?
I started this mess so Ill try to see it through. Ive been wary of posting anything remotely partisan at all, aside from my previous post which quoted Jackson and commented on the fact of so many big names being involved here.
So lets get this back on track gentlemen. WTF is actually going on in Ferguson at this moment? Any more trouble?
So lets get this back on track gentlemen. WTF is actually going on in Ferguson at this moment? Any more trouble?
They are still marching peacefully somewhat and they said they want the quicktrip rebuilt that was burned down and mentioned or else...whatever that means. I'm just curious as to what will happen if or when the officer involved gets cleared of the charges, because he shot a guy who was a weapon in himself and had already assaulted him once and was in fear of losing his life. They'll probably burn the rest of the town down if so I would assume. We shall see I guess.
This is a good question.
I know what should be happening. All those leaders who have capitalized on this event should now be spending that capital on this community. They should be out saying justice will be done. Telling the people that they need to be ready to hear the truth, even if the truth is this kid brought it on himself. Maybe I am a skeptic, but I doubt there is a whole lot of that happening.
They have bought time to calm down emotions. How they use that time is the key to how this ends. Where are the press, Sharpton and Jackson now?
Last edited:
Haven't seen much or hear much lately. There are some that are still protesting and. Handful of pro Wilson supporters down there. It seems the fire has burned down.....(no pun intended). However, I think there's going to be a resurgence once the grand jury come back. And it will probably be worse than the previous outburst. Thankfully I'll be out of the area by then.....I hope.
There is not much going on. There are maybe a 100 or less protesters every day. they reopened traffic to west florrisant in the 4-5 blocks where it was going on .Today there is a march here. So far so good. We hope it all holds out. But feel either way the decision goes. If the officer is guilty or not. I think it will flare up either way. How bad it will get. I have no clue.
Just saw there were more riots last night. Any updates from you guys who live there?
I think it was Labor Day weekend they attempted to blockade I70, but there were TONS of cops down there. Supposedly a guy(white guy) got off at the exit trying to go about his business and they surrounded his car and did a bunch of damage to it and he drove off and ran over a couple of them. I heard a snippet about it, but nothing further. If it had been me, there might have been some shots fired through a window.
Yes and supposedly there were some more riots last night and looting of a store or two.
Yes and supposedly there were some more riots last night and looting of a store or two.
