Tasers, Dogs, and Lies to Park Rangers

[pegwinn]

Ok, the dude was walking the dog sans leash. The Park Ranger confronts him and he apparently lied when the Ranger asked his name. Then he tried to leave. Result: Taser and USA Today.

Here is an excerpt from the middle of the story. Click here to read the whole thing. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-31/dog-walker-arrested/52907864/1)


Rosenberg said the chief ranger for the recreational area replied with some details of the incident. In the response, which she shared with The Associated Press, Kevin Cochary said Hesterberg was "not compliant, tried to run away and lied to the investigating ranger about his name."

Question: Am I the only person who normally backs up the cops to think that this sounds off? I mean, giving a fake name and walking off is a taser offense? There has to be something I am missing. Help me out, please.

[ConHog]

Ok, the dude was walking the dog sans leash. The Park Ranger confronts him and he apparently lied when the Ranger asked his name. Then he tried to leave. Result: Taser and USA Today.

Here is an excerpt from the middle of the story. Click here to read the whole thing. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-31/dog-walker-arrested/52907864/1)



Question: Am I the only person who normally backs up the cops to think that this sounds off? I mean, giving a fake name and walking off is a taser offense? There has to be something I am missing. Help me out, please.

This seems like a clear detention to me. The guy was clearly in violation of a law (walking the dog without a leash) and so when approached by police in CA he was required to stop and identify himself.

[pegwinn]

Was he truly in violation of the law? Criminal law? As in Miranda Rights and potentially facing jail?

I only ask because the story (link in OP) said:

in violation of the rules of Rancho Corral de Tierra, which was incorporated into the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in December.

Cops are unsung heroes for the most part. But, I truly think they should (like the military) be held to a higher standard. Is a Park Ranger a cop? I only ask because I have never dealt with one on a level above asking for directions to the camp ground, swimming hole, or fishing pier.

I guess I just can't see this as a weapons worthy incident.

Enlighten me.

[logroller]

Was he truly in violation of the law? Criminal law? As in Miranda Rights and potentially facing jail?


I guess I just can't see this as a weapons worthy incident.

Enlighten me.
From the OP-


The ranger deployed the Taser stun gun on Gary Hesterberg on Sunday after he ignored the ranger's orders and tried to walk away..

"Any law enforcement officer has a variety of means by which to insure compliance in a law enforcement situation, so the standard is they exercise reasonable judgment to ensure compliance in any situation they find themselves in," Levitt said...

Hesterberg was arrested on suspicion of failing to obey a lawful order, having dogs off-leash and knowingly providing false information, Levitt said.


He'll pay some fines most likely, but he broke the law.

As to the use of weapons, I would think the SOP would be to manually subdue him, suggesting a taser was excessive force. However, he had a dog which poses a risk to others (hence the leash law), thus it could reasonably be assumed it could attack the officer when he/she tried to subdue the dog's owner.

Although, the reported intent of the leash law---
Park service officials and environmentalists said they want to protect some 1,200 native plant and animal species, including the Snowy Plover, a federally endangered shorebird :lame:

[darin]

Ranger should be disciplined, based on what I'm reading. If the ranger wished to cite the man, she should have said "wait here, I am detaining you while I prepare the violation".

If the man had no legal or proper notification of detainment he was free to go.

[revelarts]

I know what folks might expect me to say but urr this one looks like a boarderline case. the kind of case that makes it hard to have a rule either way.

My problem here isn't so much the Ranger. It's the Rangers attitude (and folks here) attitude toward "THE LAW".
there's a thing called the letter of the the law then there's the spirit of the law. Some cops seem to only to be able to understand the letter and their assumed authority over unruly low life "civilians".

the man had dogs not on a leash. Ok the spirit of the law is the safety of oethrs in the park. The guy should have been stopped. even good dogs snap. If Both the Dog owner and the ranger were acting like adults he probably could have been escorted without fine back to his vehicle dogs and all and no one would have known anything about this incident.

I've been stopped on park property for "fishing without a licence" the ranger just asked me to pack my pole and get a license. I wasn't happy but he didn't ticket, cuff or taze me or ask me to ID myself. I packed up my pole and left.
Spirit of the law obeyed. no fishing without a license.
(still don't know why you need a stinking license to fish in a park that's maintained by city tax dollars already ..but i digress)


But here's a list of COPS and Schools gone wild that show a bit of a pattern of schools and police thinking of the letter of the law and beyond it to some kind of quasi-prison mindset. some of this stuff is hard to believe. we report you decide.

...But what is going on in many areas of the country is absolutely ridiculous. For example, in 2010 alone police down in Texas issued an astounding 300,000 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/09/texas-police-schools)tickets to school children.
Yes, if a kid pulls a knife on someone the police should get involved, but teachers and administrators should be able to use some common sense and handle the vast majority of discipline problems that happen themselves.
What you are about to read is absolutely going to amaze you. The following are 19 really crazy things that school children are being arrested for in America….
#1 At one public school down in Texas, a 12-year-old girl named Sarah Bustamantes was recently arrested for spraying herself with perfume (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/09/texas-police-schools).
#2 A 13-year-old student at a school in Albuquerque, New Mexico was recently arrested by police for burping in class (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57334925/student-arrested-for-burping-lawsuit-claims/).
#3 Another student down in Albuquerque was forced to strip down to his underwear while five adults watched because he had $200 in his pocket (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57334925/student-arrested-for-burping-lawsuit-claims/). The student was never formally charged with doing anything wrong.
#4 A security guard at one school in California broke the arm of a 16-year-old girl because she left some crumbs on the floor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk2b_twCCdw) after cleaning up some cake that she had spilled.
#5 One teenage couple down in Houston poured milk on each other during a squabble while they were breaking up. Instead of being sent to see the principal,they were arrested (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/09/texas-police-schools) and sent to court.
#6 In early 2010, a 12-year-old girl at a school in Forest Hills, New York was arrested by police and marched out of her school in handcuffs just because she doodled on her desk (http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/18/new.york.doodle.arrest/index.html?hpt=C1). “I love my friends Abby and Faith” was what she reportedly scribbled on her desk.
#7 A 6-year-old girl down in Florida was handcuffed and sent to a mental facility (http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2010/feb/11/port-st-lucie-schools-confines-6-year-old-with/) after throwing temper tantrums at her elementary school.
#8 One student down in Texas was reportedly arrested by police for throwing paper airplanes (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/09/texas-police-schools) in class.
#9 A 17-year-old honor student in North Carolina named Ashley Smithwick accidentally took her father’s lunch with her to school. It contained a small paring knife which he would use to slice up apples. So what happened to this standout student when the school discovered this? The school suspended her for the rest of the year (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/29/nc-high-school-senior-suspended-charged-possesion-small-knife-lunchbox/#) and the police charged her with a misdemeanor.
#10 In Allentown, Pennsylvania a 14-year-old girl was tasered in the groin area (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaPjJG8NVsY&feature=player_embedded) by a school security officer even though she had put up her hands in the air to surrender.
#11 Down in Florida, an 11-year-old student was arrested, thrown in jail and charged with a third-degree felony for bringing a plastic butter knife (http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2009/june09/zero-tolerance-states.html) to school.
#12 Back in 2009, an 8-year-old boy in Massachusetts was sent home from school and was forced to undergo a psychological evaluation (http://www.tauntongazette.com/news/x1903566059/Taunton-second-grader-suspended-over-drawing-of-Jesus) because he drew a picture of Jesus on the cross.
#13 A police officer in San Mateo, California blasted a 7-year-old special education student in the face with pepper spray (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/08/MNH91M90CN.DTL) because he would not quit climbing on the furniture.
#14 In America today, even 5-year-old children are treated brutally by police. The following is from a recent article (http://www.kcra.com/r/29847063/detail.html) that described what happened to one very young student in Stockton, California a while back….
Earlier this year, a Stockton student was handcuffed with zip ties on his hands and feet, forced to go to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation and was charged with battery on a police officer. That student was 5 years old.

#15 At one school in Connecticut, a 17-year-old boy was thrown to the floor andtasered five times (http://www.middletownpress.com/articles/2011/06/14/news/doc4df7b12331ec9768149316.txt?viewmode=fullstory) because he was yelling at a cafeteria worker.
#16 A teenager in suburban Dallas was forced to take on a part-time job (http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/weird/Teen-Fined-637-for-Foul-Language-in-Classroom-114879844.html)after being ticketed for using foul language in one high school classroom. The original ticket was for $340, but additional fees have raised the total bill to $637.
#17 A few months ago, police were called out when a little girl kissed a little boy (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/cops-called-for-school-kiss-657831) during a physical education class at an elementary school down in Florida.
#18 A 6-year-old boy was recently charged with sexual battery (http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/01/27/hercules-family-battles-playground-sex-assault-claim-against-6-year-old/) for some “inappropriate touching” during a game of tag at one elementary school in the San Francisco area.
#19 In Massachusetts, police were recently sent out to collect an overdue library book from a 5-year-old girl (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/01/02/charlton-library-sends-police-to-collect-overdue-books-from-5-year-old/).
Unfortunately, what is going on in our schools is a reflection of the broader society as a whole. Our schools are being turned into prisons (http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/18-signs-that-life-in-u-s-public-schools-is-now-essentially-equivalent-to-life-in-u-s-prisons) because our entire society is being turned into a giant prison (http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/30-signs-that-the-united-states-of-america-is-being-turned-into-a-giant-prison)....

[fj1200]

But here's a list of COPS and Schools gone wild that show a bit of a pattern of schools and police thinking of the letter of the law and beyond it to some kind of quasi-prison mindset. some of this stuff is hard to believe. we report you decide.

Examples are not a pattern, they are examples, a pattern has a higher level of proof. I think I just found the root of all my disagreements with you. :poke:

[logroller]

Ranger should be disciplined, based on what I'm reading. If the ranger wished to cite the man, she should have said "wait here, I am detaining you while I prepare the violation".

If the man had no legal or proper notification of detainment he was free to go.

"Stop"/ "Stay" would be proper, no?


Hesterberg allegedly refused to provide the ranger with printed identification, and she realized he had told her a false name when she called dispatchers to verify, Levitt said. While she was on the telephone, "the man failed to heed repeated orders to remain at the scene" and the ranger used her Taser, he said...
A witness, Michelle Babcock, told the San Francisco Chronicle (http://bit.ly/y9rHph) the ranger never gave Hesterberg an explanation as to why he was being detained and then hit him with the stun gun in the back.
"He just tried to walk away," Babcock said. "She never gave him a reason. … It didn't make any sense."

SO, according to a witness he was informed of detainment, just not given a reason as to why he was... but I'm not aware officers need to inform you as to why you're being arrested, let alone detained; though they usually do, its not legally required, even if you ask-- in the course of an investigation they can detain for up to 72 hours w/o giving any reason whatsoever-- so long as they have a reasonable suspicion to do so. Rather she had reasonable suspicion to detain him is a valid question.

Despite the public outrage, many people just don't know their rights. I know, been there done that-- what you have is the right to remain silent, EXCEPT for providing your name-- which he did but, when she called into dispatch with the name he'd given, it came back as false-- providing reasonable suspicion for further detainment. When asked for printed ID, he refused and tried to walk away-- she ordered him to stop, he continued to walk away. Bottom line, in providing a false name he sought to mislead a rather benign investigation and refused to comply to verbal orders from a LE officer. Which leads me to ask, what would be some plausible reasons for a person providing a false name?

[CSM]

The ranger should have shot both the man and the dog dead ... that would teach em a lesson and be a lesson to others that the LAW is inviolate! Heck, if you don't nip these things in the bud who knows how far it would go? Next thing ya know, there wouldn't be any flowers at all!

[darin]

"Stop"/ "Stay" would be proper, no?



SO, according to a witness he was informed of detainment, just not given a reason as to why he was... but I'm not aware officers need to inform you as to why you're being arrested, let alone detained; though they usually do, its not legally required, even if you ask-- in the course of an investigation they can detain for up to 72 hours w/o giving any reason whatsoever-- so long as they have a reasonable suspicion to do so. Rather she had reasonable suspicion to detain him is a valid question.

Despite the public outrage, many people just don't know their rights. I know, been there done that-- what you have is the right to remain silent, EXCEPT for providing your name-- which he did but, when she called into dispatch with the name he'd given, it came back as false-- providing reasonable suspicion for further detainment. When asked for printed ID, he refused and tried to walk away-- she ordered him to stop, he continued to walk away. Bottom line, in providing a false name he sought to mislead a rather benign investigation and refused to comply to verbal orders from a LE officer. Which leads me to ask, what would be some plausible reasons for a person providing a false name?

What does 'remain at the scene' mean? Mean he cannot move? He must stand somewhere?

The whole 'stop and cite' scenario for this points to a cop doing something stupid; wasting time. Warn the guy, then move on to crime.

[logroller]

What does 'remain at the scene' mean? Mean he cannot move? He must stand somewhere?

The whole 'stop and cite' scenario for this points to a cop doing something stupid; wasting time. Warn the guy, then move on to crime.

From merriam Webster online

remain: 2) to stay in the same place or with the same person or group

scene: 4) the place of an occurrence or action: locale


Let's say I disagree with jaywalking laws-- should I tell the cop to fuck off and walk away? Cause that's actually less severe than giving a false name. Or rather, should I give him my ID and STFU?

This guy escalated the situation beyond a standard 'stop and warn/cite' situation. I'm all for liberty, but lying to cop is far from a reasonable expression of liberty. Disagree with the law all you want, go to court and plead your case-- that's the process. According to my attorney, in dealing with LE the goal in any stop is to leave freely; not surprisingly, providing false information doesn't fulfill that goal.

Now I've done my best to answer those questions posed here, but I don't disagree that something doesn't add up-- specifically, why did this guy provide a false name? Please enlighten me as to how you reason that behavior.

[Abbey Marie]

Examples are not a pattern, they are examples, a pattern has a higher level of proof. I think I just found the root of all my disagreements with you. :poke:

While I agree not a pattern, depending on the chronology of the events, they could constitute a trend.

[cadet]

Ok, the dude was walking the dog sans leash. The Park Ranger confronts him and he apparently lied when the Ranger asked his name. Then he tried to leave. Result: Taser and USA Today.

Here is an excerpt from the middle of the story. Click here to read the whole thing. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-31/dog-walker-arrested/52907864/1)



Question: Am I the only person who normally backs up the cops to think that this sounds off? I mean, giving a fake name and walking off is a taser offense? There has to be something I am missing. Help me out, please.

so, in a nut shell, and in layman's terms...
man walks good dog that he trusts, must be some hell'uv'a dog.
ranger walks up and says WTF!!!
man walks away, and lies cause he doesn't want to get in trouble.
and the ranger tased him, (must have been a great wuss of a dog not to attack the ranger cause of that.)

and it ends up a big story. :laugh:

[pegwinn]

I'm all for cops in most cases. But, they should be held to a higher standard than simple civilians. Having said that....

Is a Park Ranger a cop? Humor me because I am a layman when it comes to civil law enforcement. I mean, the Sheriff, the City Cops, JP, Constable, and Meter Maids (the pc term is parking enforcement) are all duly authorized "Officers of the Law". I've simply never heard of a Park Ranger in Jellystone National Park being authorized to do anything but kick you out of the park and then call the sheriff. Oh, and in Texas a Game Warden is duly authorized as well, with almost Texas Ranger - like authority.

When is it illegal to lie to a cop? If I am not under arrest I can call myself Yogi Bear and if he doesn't have Probable Cause...... I get that once you are under arrest/apprehension that perjury most likely applies if you choose to speak.

Last Question: Is violation of Park Regulations an actual violation of criminal law? If it is administrative law that applies, then I'd say the Taser was a bit extreme.

[ConHog]

I'm all for cops in most cases. But, they should be held to a higher standard than simple civilians. Having said that....

Is a Park Ranger a cop? Humor me because I am a layman when it comes to civil law enforcement. I mean, the Sheriff, the City Cops, JP, Constable, and Meter Maids (the pc term is parking enforcement) are all duly authorized "Officers of the Law". I've simply never heard of a Park Ranger in Jellystone National Park being authorized to do anything but kick you out of the park and then call the sheriff. Oh, and in Texas a Game Warden is duly authorized as well, with almost Texas Ranger - like authority.

When is it illegal to lie to a cop? If I am not under arrest I can call myself Yogi Bear and if he doesn't have Probable Cause...... I get that once you are under arrest/apprehension that perjury most likely applies if you choose to speak.

Last Question: Is violation of Park Regulations an actual violation of criminal law? If it is administrative law that applies, then I'd say the Taser was a bit extreme.

Short answer. Yes a park danger is law enforcement.

Also. It is not illegal to falsely identify yourself to police. You're quite correct about that. It is however stupid because all you're going to do is piss them off when they realize you've lied.

Also LE can detain you without charges for 72 hours and they do t have to tell you why. Walking away from w park ranger who is has detained you for violation of a leash law is equivelant to driving away from a states trooper who has pulled you over for speeding.

[Missileman]

I'm all for cops in most cases. But, they should be held to a higher standard than simple civilians. Having said that....

Is a Park Ranger a cop? Humor me because I am a layman when it comes to civil law enforcement. I mean, the Sheriff, the City Cops, JP, Constable, and Meter Maids (the pc term is parking enforcement) are all duly authorized "Officers of the Law". I've simply never heard of a Park Ranger in Jellystone National Park being authorized to do anything but kick you out of the park and then call the sheriff. Oh, and in Texas a Game Warden is duly authorized as well, with almost Texas Ranger - like authority.

When is it illegal to lie to a cop? If I am not under arrest I can call myself Yogi Bear and if he doesn't have Probable Cause...... I get that once you are under arrest/apprehension that perjury most likely applies if you choose to speak.

Last Question: Is violation of Park Regulations an actual violation of criminal law? If it is administrative law that applies, then I'd say the Taser was a bit extreme.

I believe it's illegal to give a cop a false name under any circumstances.

Edited to add: It is illegal in several states. Cali is not one of them.

[logroller]

I'm all for cops in most cases. But, they should be held to a higher standard than simple civilians. Having said that....

Is a Park Ranger a cop? Humor me because I am a layman when it comes to civil law enforcement. I mean, the Sheriff, the City Cops, JP, Constable, and Meter Maids (the pc term is parking enforcement) are all duly authorized "Officers of the Law". I've simply never heard of a Park Ranger in Jellystone National Park being authorized to do anything but kick you out of the park and then call the sheriff. Oh, and in Texas a Game Warden is duly authorized as well, with almost Texas Ranger - like authority.

yes, I believe they are section VI: Law enforcement officials; who ordinarily carry a firearm and a badge, have full arrest powers, and are paid by government funds. I don't believe parking enforcement is though, which would be considered a civilian employee, enforcing civil laws, not criminal. Same goes for purely investigatory and/or technical positions-- Coroners, accident investigators, building code enforcement etc. A LE officer can enforce civil law too, but a civilian official cannot enforce criminal law.


When is it illegal to lie to a cop? If I am not under arrest I can call myself Yogi Bear and if he doesn't have Probable Cause...... I get that once you are under arrest/apprehension that perjury most likely applies if you choose to speak.

Section 18 USC 1001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements)
Great quote from the above link, from Bryson v US

Our legal system provides methods for challenging the Government's right to ask questions — lying is not one of them.
You can say whatever you like, but it can and will be used against you in court of law. You needn't be arrested for that to apply BTW.


Last Question: Is violation of Park Regulations an actual violation of criminal law? If it is administrative law that applies, then I'd say the Taser was a bit extreme. Depends on what the violation was-- infraction, misdemeanor or felony. Most regulations are infractions, carrying no jail time--only fines. But that wasn't why he was tazed-- he failed to obey an order, a crime, punishable by imprisonment.

[pegwinn]

I believe it's illegal to give a cop a false name under any circumstances.

Edited to add: It is illegal in several states. Cali is not one of them.


Short answer. Yes a park danger is law enforcement.

Also. It is not illegal to falsely identify yourself to police. You're quite correct about that. It is however stupid because all you're going to do is piss them off when they realize you've lied.

Also LE can detain you without charges for 72 hours and they do t have to tell you why. Walking away from w park ranger who is has detained you for violation of a leash law is equivelant to driving away from a states trooper who has pulled you over for speeding.


yes, I believe they are section VI: Law enforcement officials; who ordinarily carry a firearm and a badge, have full arrest powers, and are paid by government funds. I don't believe parking enforcement is though, which would be considered a civilian employee, enforcing civil laws, not criminal. Same goes for purely investigatory and/or technical positions-- Coroners, accident investigators, building code enforcement etc. A LE officer can enforce civil law too, but a civilian official cannot enforce criminal law.


Section 18 USC 1001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements)
Great quote from the above link, from Bryson v US

You can say whatever you like, but it can and will be used against you in court of law. You needn't be arrested for that to apply BTW.

Depends on what the violation was-- infraction, misdemeanor or felony. Most regulations are infractions, carrying no jail time--only fines. But that wasn't why he was tazed-- he failed to obey an order, a crime, punishable by imprisonment.

Thanks for the assist guys. Man am I glad I live in Texas. From our penal code:


Sec. 9.31 (C) The use of force to resist arrest or search is justified:
(1) If, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer"s (or other person"s) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

Since I am generally a law abiding kind of guy that really is nothing more than trivia for me. But, it's nice to know that the state recognises the possibility.

[fj1200]

While I agree not a pattern, depending on the chronology of the events, they could constitute a trend.

A trend that society is a bag full of idiots but not a pattern of the coming police state prison society.

[fj1200]

Depends on what the violation was-- infraction, misdemeanor or felony. Most regulations are infractions, carrying no jail time--only fines. But that wasn't why he was tazed-- he failed to obey an order, a crime, punishable by imprisonment.

Haven't many crimes been stopped/major criminals caught because of minor infractions? Besides, what is he supposed to do if his authority is questioned?

[ConHog]

Haven't many crimes been stopped/major criminals caught because of minor infractions? Besides, what is he supposed to do if his authority is questioned?

your sarcasm is noted, but yes take T McVeigh for instance, caught because the tail lights on his getaway car weren't working .

[fj1200]

your sarcasm is noted, but yes take T McVeigh for instance, caught because the tail lights on his getaway car weren't working .

Actually there wasn't any sarcasm in there but I realized how it sounded when I typed it. :laugh: Of course that is no reason to start expecting to catch a McVeigh with a dog leash stop.

[ConHog]

Actually there wasn't any sarcasm in there but I realized how it sounded when I typed it. :laugh: Of course that is no reason to start expecting to catch a McVeigh with a dog leash stop.

well of course there is no reason to think a T McVeigh will be caught on a dog leash stop, on the other hand I'm sure that cop in OK wasn't expecting to catch him on a traffic violation either.

[revelarts]

While I agree not a pattern, depending on the chronology of the events, they could constitute a trend.


A trend that society is a bag full of idiots but not a pattern of the coming police state prison society.

I think Trend is a good word for it.

when you or you dad were a kids did you see black suit cops on the street with military vehicles and military style weapons.

you not being honest if you say that police work is "the same" as it was 40 yrs ago. there were no "no knock warrents". No "check points" on the street. No TSA at the airports. No VPER squads at Bus Train and truck stops. No borader police 100 miles from the boarder stopping and asking a few questions. No local police in black roit gear and no name tags with military style vehicles and weapons.

you don't see a "police state" on the way... OK FJ, but there's a time between day and night called twilight and i think we are there buddy. it could stay this way for decades and trun light again but to say that we aren't trending toward darkness at this point is a bit of denial IMO.

--------
but to the subject of the tread here's a case that's a bit similar to the no one mentioned
the guys was driving a bit funny and he's pulled over.
After that I'd like to get opions on why the guy gets treated the way he does.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tHzYIrBffVs?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

[ConHog]

I think Trend is a good word for it.

when you or you dad were a kids did you see black suit cops on the street with military vehicles and military style weapons.

you not being honest if you say that police work is "the same" as it was 40 yrs ago. there were no "no knock warrents". No "check points" on the street. No TSA at the airports. No VPER squads at Bus Train and truck stops. No borader police 100 miles from the boarder stopping and asking a few questions. No local police in black roit gear and no name tags with military style vehicles and weapons.

you don't see a "police state" on the way... OK FJ, but there's a time between day and night called twilight and i think we are there buddy. it could stay this way for decades and trun light again but to say that we aren't trending toward darkness at this point is a bit of denial IMO.

--------
but to the subject of the tread here's a case that's a bit similar to the no one mentioned
the guys was driving a bit funny and he's pulled over.
After that I'd like to get opions on why the guy gets treated the way he does.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tHzYIrBffVs?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

'

You're right Rev, 40 years ago we didn't see those types of things. But people are bigger douchebags now than they were 40 years ago. Society frowned upon people who sought violent confrontations with police, now they celebrate those assholes.

and what are LE supposed to do when the criminal element ups their weaponry? Just stick with the old .38 special and get slaughtered?




We don't live in the 1960s anymore Rev and the police have had to adapt just like everyone else.

[revelarts]

'

You're right Rev, 40 years ago we didn't see those types of things. But people are bigger douchebags now than they were 40 years ago. Society frowned upon people who sought violent confrontations with police, now they celebrate those assholes.

and what are LE supposed to do when the criminal element ups their weaponry? Just stick with the old .38 special and get slaughtered?


We don't live in the 1960s anymore Rev and the police have had to adapt just like everyone else.

Douch bags like Raw milk sellers or organic food sellers.

Police Raids On Organic Food Stores (http://www.ultimateebookstore.com/product.php?products_id=1376) <big> P.J. Huffstutter
Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-raw-food-raid-20100725,0,4951907.story)
July 26, 2010

Some people balk at restrictions on selling unprocessed milk and other foods. ‘How can we not have the freedom to choose what we eat?’ one says. Regulators say the rules exist for safety and fairness.

With no warning one weekday morning, investigators entered an organic grocery with a search warrant and ordered the hemp-clad workers to put down their buckets of mashed coconut cream and to step away from the nuts.

Then, guns drawn, four officers fanned out across Rawesome Foods in Venice. Skirting past the arugula and peering under crates of zucchini, they found the raid’s target inside a walk-in refrigerator: unmarked jugs of raw milk.

“I still can’t believe they took our yogurt,” said Rawesome volunteer Sea J. Jones, a few days after the raid. “There’s a medical marijuana shop a couple miles away, and they’re raiding us because we’re selling raw dairy products?”
</big>
Some people are being arrested for back yard gardens, would that happen in the 1960's Are gardens more dangerguos now than then?

warentless wire taps
secret renditions
NYPD admits that innocent people are being set up to meet arrest quotas
Free Speech zones
Woman spanked kid on flight and charged as a Domestic terrorist
Man Mints gold coins arrested as domestic terrorist
police infiltrate and instigate trouble among protesters.
Cameras tied to the police all over, yet more laws being made that make it illegal to film cops.
Minor school incidents being treated as serious crimes
government actually sets up fake cell phone towers that can intercept your cell phone calls..
The government maintains that the stingrays don’t violate Fourth Amendment rights, since Americans don’t have a legitimate expectation of privacy for data sent from their mobile phones and other wireless devices to a cell tower.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/reasons-to-wear-tinfoil-hats/2/
Police put GPS devices on your car if they suspect you've done something or will do something without warrant.
And we've got more people in prison in the U.S. than any other country in the world. Do we have more douchbags in the U.S. than in the whole world? Are the American people that bad?


its gone to far Con sorry, you can't justify all this crap.

[logroller]

I think Trend is a good word for it.

when you or you dad were a kids did you see black suit cops on the street with military vehicles and military style weapons.

you not being honest if you say that police work is "the same" as it was 40 yrs ago. there were no "no knock warrents". No "check points" on the street. No TSA at the airports. No VPER squads at Bus Train and truck stops. No borader police 100 miles from the boarder stopping and asking a few questions. No local police in black roit gear and no name tags with military style vehicles and weapons.

you don't see a "police state" on the way... OK FJ, but there's a time between day and night called twilight and i think we are there buddy. it could stay this way for decades and trun light again but to say that we aren't trending toward darkness at this point is a bit of denial IMO.

--------
but to the subject of the tread here's a case that's a bit similar to the no one mentioned
the guys was driving a bit funny and he's pulled over.
After that I'd like to get opions on why the guy gets treated the way he does.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px" width="640" height="360">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tHzYIrBffVs?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>oh it's Georgia -- I'm guessing he has some issues with his birth cert! Georgia law has a no getting uppity with the cop/ asking questions clause-- well its sorta unwritten-- respect my authoritay!

[ConHog]

Douch bags like Raw milk sellers or organic food sellers.

Some people are being arrested for back yard gardens, would that happen in the 1960's Are gardens more dangerguos now than then?

warentless wire taps
secret renditions
NYPD admits that innocent people are being set up to meet arrest quotas
Free Speech zones
Woman spanked kid on flight and charged as a Domestic terrorist
Man Mints gold coins arrested as domestic terrorist
police infiltrate and instigate trouble among protesters.
Cameras tied to the police all over, yet more laws being made that make it illegal to film cops.
Minor school incidents being treated as serious crimes
government actually sets up fake cell phone towers that can intercept your cell phone calls..
The government maintains that the stingrays don’t violate Fourth Amendment rights, since Americans don’t have a legitimate expectation of privacy for data sent from their mobile phones and other wireless devices to a cell tower.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/reasons-to-wear-tinfoil-hats/2/
Police put GPS devices on your car if they suspect you've done something or will do something without warrant.
And we've got more people in prison in the U.S. than any other country in the world. Do we have more douchbags in the U.S. than in the whole world? Are the American people that bad?


its gone to far Con sorry, you can't justify all this crap.


once again you pick a few example and ignore the multitudes of examples of things which counter your argument.

What about something like this


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUZ3vNIkrKE

There simply is noway you can justify the behavior of those two "ladies." That cop should have shot them. All because one of them chose to jaywalk and didn't like the cop ticketing her for it, and the other one didn't like it either so they fought the cop. Now true, you DO have the right to resist an unlawful arrest, but no one seriously believes that bitch didn't deserve a ticket for jaywalking.

Does that one story represent everyone who comes in contact with the law? Nope not anymore than the videos you post do. The difference of course is that I recognize and admit that my videos don't represent everyone.

[pegwinn]

Times have changed. When I was a kid I could go anywhere the ol schwinn would take me. Now, I don't even let my grandkids out in the fenced back yard alone. Why? Pedophiles, Kidnappers, Drug Dealers, and other assorted lowlifes is why. So, the criminals adapted and became more bold.

Our cops have to adapt and overcome or be overcome by those who adapted.

The other side of the coin is that we require our cops to do things that normal people cannot or will not do. Sound familiar? I'd say that the militarization of law enforcement is due to the fact that the .mil tactics work.

You got people in civvies setting up L-shaped ambushes with full auto hardware. Are we talking south central LA or An Anbar? Either way the tactical answer is the same. Establish fire superiority, call supporting arms, assault thru, and may God protect the innocent because at the moment we are a bit busy.

I'm willing to cut the cops a bit of slack. I also expect them to recruit, train, and live up to some high standards just like we expect from our .mil. So, when a cop overreacts or makes an obvious fuck up, there better be some consequences. Just ask the boys in SWA who got fouled up in some fucked up ROE.

I don't think we are becoming a police state so much as the cops are reacting to an increasingly violent criminal state of mind.

Edited to add: I'd have tasered the wench who attacked, I'd have let the leash guy walk away.

[ConHog]

Times have changed. When I was a kid I could go anywhere the ol schwinn would take me. Now, I don't even let my grandkids out in the fenced back yard alone. Why? Pedophiles, Kidnappers, Drug Dealers, and other assorted lowlifes is why. So, the criminals adapted and became more bold.

Our cops have to adapt and overcome or be overcome by those who adapted.

The other side of the coin is that we require our cops to do things that normal people cannot or will not do. Sound familiar? I'd say that the militarization of law enforcement is due to the fact that the .mil tactics work.

You got people in civvies setting up L-shaped ambushes with full auto hardware. Are we talking south central LA or An Anbar? Either way the tactical answer is the same. Establish fire superiority, call supporting arms, assault thru, and may God protect the innocent because at the moment we are a bit busy.

I'm willing to cut the cops a bit of slack. I also expect them to recruit, train, and live up to some high standards just like we expect from our .mil. So, when a cop overreacts or makes an obvious fuck up, there better be some consequences. Just ask the boys in SWA who got fouled up in some fucked up ROE.

I don't think we are becoming a police state so much as the cops are reacting to an increasingly violent criminal state of mind.

Edited to add: I'd have tasered the wench who attacked, I'd have let the leash guy walk away.

I grew up in Diamond Barr, CA. Population at the time about 40K. We lived in a condominium complex that was about 2 square miles , probably a thousand condos. We had the run of the place. In the summer time, we'd hop on our bikes in the morning and not come back til dinner time. Including trips to the community swimming pool. An entire group of us, never any issues.

I can't even imagine letting my children do that today (well okay the two that are over 18 yes of course, but you get my point.)

[revelarts]

there's no doubt that the types of crimes have escalated. lots of reasons to debate why. I don't let my kid run the streets like i did when i was a kid either.
however not all of America is south central LA, or the worse parts of some city.
But here's another example, think of Waco. Yes they had military style weapons inside. However at WACO the guy they wanted to arrest went the market in town regularly. they didn't need the Military raid with tanks to attack the "compound", "and God help the innocents". At Ruby ridge they wanted to arrest Randy Weaver for having a sawed off shot gun and they surrounded the place shot his kid and wife dead, when he would have walked into town eventually for a haircut.
Why do a SWAT style raid a an Organic Food store? what's the danger of meeting vegans holding high powered rifles protecting the raw milk? And again why do we have more people in prison than any country in the world? China has far less people in prison than we do.
Why the no warrant wire tap, and GPSing, Sneak and peak, Body scanning, DNA request from innocent people to put in a "data base". a list of over a million people on Terrorist watch list that included little kids and servicemen? Why can the President jail or kill anyone he suspects a being a terrorist without trial?

do you guys just dismiss stuff like that. I concede the fact that it's not as safe a place as we were kids but i think we've gone a far piece away from just looking for pedophiles, thieves and rapist. The cop in cons video was arresting the girl for Jawwalking and CH you want her Shot for her struggle? You make my case right there Con. Only a Police state would shoot a woman for struggling with a cop over Jaywalking. That's just crazy talk.

[ConHog]

there's no doubt that the types of crimes have escalated. lots of reasons to debate why. I don't let my kid run the streets like i did when i was a kid either.
however not all of America is south central LA, or the worse parts of some city.
But here's another example, think of Waco. Yes they had military style weapons inside. However at WACO the guy they wanted to arrest went the market in town regularly. they didn't need the Military raid with tanks to attack the "compound", "and God help the innocents". At Ruby ridge they wanted to arrest Randy Weaver for having a sawed off shot gun and they surrounded the place shot his kid and wife dead, when he would have walked into town eventually for a haircut.
Why do a SWAT style raid a an Organic Food store? what's the danger of meeting vegans holding high powered rifles protecting the raw milk? And again why do we have more people in prison than any country in the world? China has far less people in prison than we do.
Why the no warrant wire tap, and GPSing, Sneak and peak, Body scanning, DNA request from innocent people to put in a "data base". a list of over a million people on Terrorist watch list that included little kids and servicemen? Why can the President jail or kill anyone he suspects a being a terrorist without trial?

do you guys just dismiss stuff like that. I concede the fact that it's not as safe a place as we were kids but i think we've gone a far piece away from just looking for pedophiles, thieves and rapist. The cop in cons video was arresting the girl for Jawwalking and CH you want her Shot for her struggle? You make my case right there Con. Only a Police state would shoot a woman for struggling with a cop over Jaywalking. That's just crazy talk.

Rev, the girl in my video was NOT being arrested for jaywalking, she was going to be ticketed until she decided to assault a police officer. Over a TICKET.

[jimnyc]

Now true, you DO have the right to resist an unlawful arrest, but no one seriously believes that bitch didn't deserve a ticket for jaywalking.

Can you show me where a right or law exists that gives anyone the right to resist arrest?

[jimnyc]

do you guys just dismiss stuff like that. I concede the fact that it's not as safe a place as we were kids but i think we've gone a far piece away from just looking for pedophiles, thieves and rapist. The cop in cons video was arresting the girl for Jawwalking and CH you want her Shot for her struggle? You make my case right there Con. Only a Police state would shoot a woman for struggling with a cop over Jaywalking. That's just crazy talk.

She resisted, therefore she gets arrested. She gets physical with a police officer, he gets physical in return. Perfectly acceptable arrest and she deserved everything she got for not acting like a civilized human being.

[fj1200]

Can you show me where a right or law exists that gives anyone the right to resist arrest?

He did say "unlawful" arrest.

[jimnyc]

He did say "unlawful" arrest.

Even if unlawful, I don't think one has the "right" to resist, they have recourse through the justice system if they feel their arrest was unlawful, I don't think any right/law/code exists that states citizens are within their rights to determine what is lawful and unlawful and when they can and cannot resist arrest. Would be nice though!!

[ConHog]

Can you show me where a right or law exists that gives anyone the right to resist arrest?

It's case law Jim not written law. Here is a pretty good link about it.

http://constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

Of course leaving it up to individuals to decide when an arrest is unlawful is dangerous because most people are dumbshits.

[revelarts]

She resisted, therefore she gets arrested. She gets physical with a police officer, he gets physical in return. Perfectly acceptable arrest and she deserved everything she got for not acting like a civilized human being.
Do you have a problem with a girl getting SHOT for a pushing a cop? That's what I'm talking about, In all of the list of Items i posted show me where i complained about cops getting physical when physically attacked.
want to answer my other questions? Do you dismiss my list and think that it's normal freedom, or that it doesn't look like a trend toward a police state over the past 40 years?

And I'll mention here as we'll the high powered weapons and such that peg an Con mentioned are usually found in the hand of people in the drug biz and related gang activity, During alcohol prohibition the same happened as gangs and mobs started using machine guns and the like to protect their business. Drug Prohibition is part of the reason for the escalation of problems seems to me.

[ConHog]

Even if unlawful, I don't think one has the "right" to resist, they have recourse through the justice system if they feel their arrest was unlawful, I don't think any right/law/code exists that states citizens are within their rights to determine what is lawful and unlawful and when they can and cannot resist arrest. Would be nice though!!

Guess we posted at the same time.

You absolutely have the right to resist unlawful detainment or arrest. But as you point out a person doesn't get to decide for themselves what is lawful and what is not, that is for a court to decide.

[ConHog]

Do you have a problem with a girl getting SHOT for a pushing a cop? That's what I'm talking about, In all of the list of Items i posted show me where i comlained about cops getting physical when physically attacked.
want to answer my other questions? Do you dismiss my list and think that it's normal and it doesn't look like a trend toward a police state over the past 40 years?

And I'll mention here as we'll the high powered weapons and such that peg an Con mentioned are usually found in the hand of people in the drug biz and related gang activity, During alcohol prohibition the same happened as gangs and mobs started using machine guns and the like to protect their business. Drug Prohibition is part of the reason for the escalation of problems seems to me.


Oh, the old "legalize drugs and crime goes down" myth. Bullshit Rev, for one simple reason. The scumbags who make a living off drugs wouldn't simply go straight if drugs were legalized. They would find some other illegal method of making money. That's akin to saying you would stop posting if DP were shut down, no you wouldn't , you enjoy positing you'd just find another place to do it. Just using you as an example there of course the same applies for all of us.

Criminals are criminals , don't act like they are selling drugs and committing crimes in protest of drug laws.

[jimnyc]

It's case law Jim not written law. Here is a pretty good link about it.

http://constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

Of course leaving it up to individuals to decide when an arrest is unlawful is dangerous because most people are dumbshits.

Then it's exactly as I thought, the only right is to bring it to the judicial system, and there is no right/law/code that states it is ok to disobey an unlawful order.

[jimnyc]

Do you have a problem with a girl getting SHOT for a pushing a cop? That's what I'm talking about, In all of the list of Items i posted show me where i complained about cops getting physical when physically attacked.
want to answer my other questions? Do you dismiss my list and think that it's normal freedom, or that it doesn't look like a trend toward a police state over the past 40 years?

And I'll mention here as we'll the high powered weapons and such that peg an Con mentioned are usually found in the hand of people in the drug biz and related gang activity, During alcohol prohibition the same happened as gangs and mobs started using machine guns and the like to protect their business. Drug Prohibition is part of the reason for the escalation of problems seems to me.

I was replying to exactly what I quoted from you, as to the video of the girl jaywalking. I'm not replying to all the other questions and I'm not replying to CH's statement.

[jimnyc]

Guess we posted at the same time.

You absolutely have the right to resist unlawful detainment or arrest. But as you point out a person doesn't get to decide for themselves what is lawful and what is not, that is for a court to decide.

Where does this right come from? Case law isn't sufficient to resist arrest, although it's a pretty good reference when you take the officer to court for unlawful arrest. And you may very well end up getting off of what you consider to be an unlawful arrest, and may even win damages in a civil suit - but there is no RIGHT to resist arrest.

[ConHog]

Then it's exactly as I thought, the only right is to bring it to the judicial system, and there is no right/law/code that states it is ok to disobey an unlawful order.

No, read my link. You have the right to resist an unlawful arrest. The courts only come into play if a charge is filed due to that resistance. IE you kill the cop in the course of your resistance. THEN the facts of the arrest will be determined by a court. However in many cases a DA will decline to bring charges if an arrest that was obviously illegal was resisted because you have a right to resist that unlawful arrest ( you just better be damned sure it is an unlawful arrest before you resist)

[jimnyc]

No, read my link. You have the right to resist an unlawful arrest. The courts only come into play if a charge is filed due to that resistance. IE you kill the cop in the course of your resistance. THEN the facts of the arrest will be determined by a court. However in many cases a DA will decline to bring charges if an arrest that was obviously illegal was resisted because you have a right to resist that unlawful arrest ( you just better be damned sure it is an unlawful arrest before you resist)

So even if know law/code exists to support me - I can go through court transcripts and determine my rights based on precedent, and determine which laws I will abide by and which I won't abide, just based on prior case determinations?

All you're saying is that IF you resist arrest, AND you have support that the officer was breaking the law, you probably have a damn good chance of getting the charges dropped or winning in court. If you had a RIGHT to resist, then you wouldn't be arrested, would you? I'll stand by my ground, no law/code/right exists to resist arrest. All you have is a defendant with a chance to win in court, on his resisting arrest charge, if the arrest is determined to be unlawful.

[ConHog]

So even if know law/code exists to support me - I can go through court transcripts and determine my rights based on precedent, and determine which laws I will abide by and which I won't abide, just based on prior case determinations?

All you're saying is that IF you resist arrest, AND you have support that the officer was breaking the law, you probably have a damn good chance of getting the charges dropped or winning in court. If you had a RIGHT to resist, then you wouldn't be arrested, would you? I'll stand by my ground, no law/code/right exists to resist arrest. All you have is a defendant with a chance to win in court, on his resisting arrest charge, if the arrest is determined to be unlawful.

Again Jim, you're not reading what I'm writing.

Let's say I showed up to arrest you for whatever reason and you said "hey fuck you this arrest is illegal" and killed me. Now let's say FJ is the DA with jurisdiction and he looks at the facts and says yep, illegal arrest, he had the right to resist, no charges need be filed. END OF STORY.

The ONLY way the courts become involved is if instead FJ looked at the facts and decided that the arrest attempt was legal and therefor you were unlawfully resisting arrest then he would file further charges against you for that and for murdering me, THEN a court would hear the facts of the case and decide either that you are correct and the arrest attempt was illegal OR that FJ is right and that the arrest attempt was legal.

In either case, you have the RIGHT to resist unlawful arrest and if arrested for that the DA doesn't have to prove you resisted, what they have to prove is that the arrest attempt was lawful. You could walk in to court and say " I shot that fucking ConHog deader than a door nail because the SOB was attempting to illegally arrest me" and the DA would have to prove the arrest was legal before you faced any charges for killing me.

It's that simple.

[logroller]

Did I ever tell you about the time I was in court and there was a woman who protested court being delayed, because the judge was late and she was parked in timed parking or something.(of course, the bailiff had previously stated anyone in such a position needed to move their cars, and gave us leave to do so) So the judge comes in and asks who had rushed the court-- case introduced. The initial charge was public disturbance (go figure), which was accompanied by a failure to appear, then appears for another arraignment and another date was set, then a failure to appear, another arraignment; again, failed to appear; so the judge sets yet another date and remands the woman to custody. She plead with the judge, 'I'll show up. I'll be here.' To which he responded, 'I know you will, because I'm going to hold until then.' :lmao:

It was like Dec 20 something, and with court holidays and what not, the date was the first week of January; so she was in jail for the holidays-- which I'm sure he was keenly aware. Perhaps this could be seen as cruel or vindictive, but she had repeatedly been dismissive, if not contemptuous of the justice system, and the judge has the duty of upholding and dispensing justice, which requires a great deal of discretion. Same goes for LE officers, sure they may go overboard from time to time, and certainly one has the right to demand redress of grievances; but that isn't done in the street, its done in court. Take your ticket and STFU.

Officers and judges tend to show the same courtesy they are shown. I can tell you the quiet and polite people, even when they are ticketed, aren't memorable to the officers; and when a court challenge comes up, half the time they don't even show up and the case is dismissed. If you instead make it a point of being resistant, they respond in kind, and make a point of showing up.

[revelarts]

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Officer-Henwoods-Final-Act-of-Kindness-127886453.html

[fj1200]

So even if know law/code exists to support me - I can go through court transcripts and determine my rights based on precedent, and determine which laws I will abide by and which I won't abide, just based on prior case determinations?

All you're saying is that IF you resist arrest, AND you have support that the officer was breaking the law, you probably have a damn good chance of getting the charges dropped or winning in court. If you had a RIGHT to resist, then you wouldn't be arrested, would you? I'll stand by my ground, no law/code/right exists to resist arrest. All you have is a defendant with a chance to win in court, on his resisting arrest charge, if the arrest is determined to be unlawful.

Why would you need a law that supports you're "right" to resist an unlawful arrest? If Cop CH is trying to steal rev's lunch money, kidnap him, and taze him for some YouTube hilarity, clearly his actions are against the law and rev's actions in resisting are valid. We have laws that criminalize CH's behavior not validate rev's actions.

[jimnyc]

Again Jim, you're not reading what I'm writing.

Let's say I showed up to arrest you for whatever reason and you said "hey fuck you this arrest is illegal" and killed me. Now let's say FJ is the DA with jurisdiction and he looks at the facts and says yep, illegal arrest, he had the right to resist, no charges need be filed. END OF STORY.

The ONLY way the courts become involved is if instead FJ looked at the facts and decided that the arrest attempt was legal and therefor you were unlawfully resisting arrest then he would file further charges against you for that and for murdering me, THEN a court would hear the facts of the case and decide either that you are correct and the arrest attempt was illegal OR that FJ is right and that the arrest attempt was legal.

In either case, you have the RIGHT to resist unlawful arrest and if arrested for that the DA doesn't have to prove you resisted, what they have to prove is that the arrest attempt was lawful. You could walk in to court and say " I shot that fucking ConHog deader than a door nail because the SOB was attempting to illegally arrest me" and the DA would have to prove the arrest was legal before you faced any charges for killing me.

It's that simple.

Then you would agree that a passenger entering an airport has the RIGHT to resist being arrested when refusing to be searched, and then let the courts and/or the DA decide the merits of the case afterwards. Weird that you state otherwise in the TSA threads, that those people there should do what the TSA states and handle complaints about legality through proper channels, that they shouldn't resist.

[ConHog]

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Officer-Henwoods-Final-Act-of-Kindness-127886453.html

I hope the fucker that shot that cop suffered greatly before dying himself.

[fj1200]

Then you would agree that a passenger entering an airport has the RIGHT to resist being arrested when refusing to be searched, and then let the courts and/or the DA decide the merits of the case afterwards. Weird that you state otherwise in the TSA threads, that those people there should do what the TSA states and handle complaints about legality through proper channels, that they shouldn't resist.

The TSA agent is acting lawfully, both parties (should) know that.

[jimnyc]

Why would you need a law that supports you're "right" to resist an unlawful arrest? If Cop CH is trying to steal rev's lunch money, kidnap him, and taze him for some YouTube hilarity, clearly his actions are against the law and rev's actions in resisting are valid. We have laws that criminalize CH's behavior not validate rev's actions.

I've seen many threads/videos of people that videotape police officers while they are making arrests or doing other things within their duties. It is in fact within the law, almost everywhere, to videotape officers, so long as you aren't a threat and don't get in their way. And in many of these videos, the videotaper gets arrested for failing to follow an order from the police to stop taping. And upon being arrested for this offense, you support and think it's 100% legal for the citizens to resist arrest in addition to what the officer is apparently already charging them with?

And I never said a law had to exist, that was simply an additional option I added. My stance is that no RIGHT exists to resist arrest, whether from a lawful or unlawful arrest. It's up to the judicial system to determine if an arrest is lawful or not, not up to citizens determining such on the fly.

And yes, in your example, Rev's resisting would likely be "valid", but ultimately being valid doesn't mean it's a right. Again would be up to the courts to ultimately determine based on the evidence.

[ConHog]

The TSA agent is acting lawfully, both parties (should) know that.

I missed this post by Jim, so just piggy backing on your post FJ.

Jim, I thought you knew the difference between protesting a law, and resisting an unlawful arrest. It appears that you do not.

[jimnyc]

The TSA agent is acting lawfully, both parties (should) know that.

So then you agree that the TSA, and their jobs, are 100% constitutional, and those in line should shut up, agree, and if they have any issues arising from their trip they should wait till afterwards and file complaints via the appropriate channels?

[jimnyc]

I missed this post by Jim, so just piggy backing on your post FJ.

Jim, I thought you knew the difference between protesting a law, and resisting an unlawful arrest. It appears that you do not.

I thought you knew a few things too, but I'm learning more and more that you are hypocritical depending on the situations.

[fj1200]

I've seen many threads/videos of people that videotape police officers while they are making arrests or doing other things within their duties. It is in fact within the law, almost everywhere, to videotape officers, so long as you aren't a threat and don't get in their way. And in many of these videos, the videotaper gets arrested for failing to follow an order from the police to stop taping. And upon being arrested for this offense, you support and think it's 100% legal for the citizens to resist arrest in addition to what the officer is apparently already charging them with?

And I never said a law had to exist, that was simply an additional option I added. My stance is that no RIGHT exists to resist arrest, whether from a lawful or unlawful arrest. It's up to the judicial system to determine if an arrest is lawful or not, not up to citizens determining such on the fly.

And yes, in your example, Rev's resisting would likely be "valid", but ultimately being valid doesn't mean it's a right. Again would be up to the courts to ultimately determine based on the evidence.

If a cop is unlawfully trying to kill me covered by arresting me, it is my RIGHT to resist. I don't need a law.

[jimnyc]

If a cop is unlawfully trying to kill me covered by arresting me, it is my RIGHT to resist. I don't need a law.

You quoted my post and then reply with a totally different scenario? I never said anything about anyone killing anyone.

[fj1200]

So then you agree that the TSA, and their jobs, are 100% constitutional, and those in line should shut up, agree, and if they have any issues arising from their trip they should wait till afterwards and file complaints via the appropriate channels?

Where did I say otherwise? The TSA is stupid, not necessarily unconstitutional.

[jimnyc]

Where did I say otherwise? The TSA is stupid, not necessarily unconstitutional.

None of you guys have ever argued on this board about the constitutionality of the TSA and their searches? Wow, I'm having bad dreams! LOL

[ConHog]

I've seen many threads/videos of people that videotape police officers while they are making arrests or doing other things within their duties. It is in fact within the law, almost everywhere, to videotape officers, so long as you aren't a threat and don't get in their way. And in many of these videos, the videotaper gets arrested for failing to follow an order from the police to stop taping. And upon being arrested for this offense, you support and think it's 100% legal for the citizens to resist arrest in addition to what the officer is apparently already charging them with?

And I never said a law had to exist, that was simply an additional option I added. My stance is that no RIGHT exists to resist arrest, whether from a lawful or unlawful arrest. It's up to the judicial system to determine if an arrest is lawful or not, not up to citizens determining such on the fly.

And yes, in your example, Rev's resisting would likely be "valid", but ultimately being valid doesn't mean it's a right. Again would be up to the courts to ultimately determine based on the evidence.

Jim, you're missing the entire point.

IF you didn't have the right to resist an unlawful arrest, then there would be nothing for the courts to decide.

For instance, let's once again say I have attempted to arrest Rev. Let's once again assume I have no lawful reason for doing so. He resists and ends up killing me. Now let's once again assume he's arrested and tried for killing me. If he had no right to resist an unlawful arrest, he has NO defense for actions. The court only need decide guilt or innocence. Either he killed me or he didn't. But since he DOES have the right to resist an unlawful arrest, that isn't the first question that must be asked. The first question is , can the state show that my arrest attempt was legal. If it was then Rev can just say yes I killed him in the course exercising my right to resist unlawful arrest. The question of whether he did it or not is moot.

In effect a police officer who is attempting an unlawful arrest , is in fact attempting to kidnap you, and you can definitely resist a kidnapping.


It's a technically fine line to be sure, but it is a line that one can walk one if need be.

[ConHog]

None of you guys have ever argued on this board about the constitutionality of the TSA and their searches? Wow, I'm having bad dreams! LOL

Actually unless I'm confused I don't believe FJ has argued that they are unconstitutional. He HAS argued that the government shouldn't be the ones doing the job, but I think it's others that have argued that the government doesn't have the right to do it.

[jimnyc]

Jim, you're missing the entire point.

IF you didn't have the right to resist an unlawful arrest, then there would be nothing for the courts to decide.

For instance, let's once again say I have attempted to arrest Rev. Let's once again assume I have no lawful reason for doing so. He resists and ends up killing me. Now let's once again assume he's arrested and tried for killing me. If he had no right to resist an unlawful arrest, he has NO defense for actions. The court only need decide guilt or innocence. Either he killed me or he didn't. But since he DOES have the right to resist an unlawful arrest, that isn't the first question that must be asked. The first question is , can the state show that my arrest attempt was legal. If it was then Rev can just say yes I killed him in the course exercising my right to resist unlawful arrest. The question of whether he did it or not is moot.

In effect a police officer who is attempting an unlawful arrest , is in fact attempting to kidnap you, and you can definitely resist a kidnapping.


It's a technically fine line to be sure, but it is a line that one can walk one if need be.

I'm done with that "what if's". You guys are hilarious, and hypocrites. There have been MANY cases in US history where arrests have been determined to be unlawful. Please provide me with the statistics on how many officers have been charged with kidnapping...

[ConHog]

I'm done with that "what if's". You guys are hilarious, and hypocrites. There have been MANY cases in US history where arrests have been determined to be unlawful. Please provide me with the statistics on how many officers have been charged with kidnapping...

http://michaelk.hubpages.com/hub/false-arrest

You truly have no clue what you are talking about here Jim. Nothing to be ashamed about, it's not a subject one normally educates themselves on, but stop acting like you know it all. You don't.

[jimnyc]

http://michaelk.hubpages.com/hub/false-arrest

You truly have no clue what you are talking about here Jim. Nothing to be ashamed about, it's not a subject one normally educates themselves on, but stop acting like you know it all. You don't.

Please list officers charged with kidnapping as you stated, Mr. Professional Hypocrite.

I'm not the dickhead who runs around the board claiming to be a constitutional expert, having various degrees, being an expert and dozens of subjects and then claiming to be a Ranger, over and over throughout the board. I also don't run around claiming it's perfectly acceptable to call people nigger and other racist names, only to have a genuine debate and act as if it's a problem, or "dehumanizing", if one calls another a queer.

[ConHog]

Please list officers charged with kidnapping as you stated, Mr. Professional Hypocrite.

I'm not the dickhead who runs around the board claiming to be a constitutional expert, having various degrees, being an expert and dozens of subjects and then claiming to be a Ranger, over and over throughout the board. I also don't run around claiming it's perfectly acceptable to call people nigger and other racist names, only to have a genuine debate and act as if it's a problem, or "dehumanizing", if one calls another a queer.

Now what gave you cause to be that nasty? Because I said you are uneducated on this subject?

Whatever man, you can have this thread.

PS grow up, I didn't flame you at all. I merely stated that you are wrong on THIS topic.

[pegwinn]

Then it's exactly as I thought, the only right is to bring it to the judicial system, and there is no right/law/code that states it is ok to disobey an unlawful order.

Hi Jim. The quote(s) under this comment come from post #18 of this thread. Hope it helps. Your results may vary of course. It depends on the state. When looking for this I did note several supreme court decisions that upheld this sort of thing. IMO it's just one more reason to absolutly demand that Cops be held to a higher standard from recruitment all the way thru retirement.


Thanks for the assist guys. Man am I glad I live in Texas. From our penal code:


Sec. 9.31 (C) The use of force to resist arrest or search is justified:
(1) If, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer"s (or other person"s) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.



Since I am generally a law abiding kind of guy that really is nothing more than trivia for me. But, it's nice to know that the state recognises the possibility.

Additional discussion of resistance to arrest can be found here (http://www.rayservers.com/blog/your-right-of-defense-against-unlawful-arrest). I do not vouch for the accuracy of every word on the website. From there I cross checked the Texas Penal Code. But, the discussion is interesting in an academic sort of way.

I do vouch for the accuracy of the Texas Penal Code which I cited above. The entire chapter can be found here. (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm)

Essentially, you do have the right to resist an unlawful arrest in Texas if the arresting officer is using excessive force. If it is say a Deputy Sheriff who just drawls, "Y'alls under arrest here boy" and makes a come along motion; you don't get to flip him off, kick his ass and haul ass.

Additionally, I've been told that using this defense places you in the position of proving your assertion in court. And, if you see Chapter 38 of the Texas Penal Code (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/PE/htm/PE.38.htm) you explicitly do not have the right to resist even an unlawful arrest or search except for conditions I quoted above from Chapter 9.

Hope this helps.

[jimnyc]

Now what gave you cause to be that nasty? Because I said you are uneducated on this subject?

Whatever man, you can have this thread.

And I think you're wrong too, but that's not how I debate. But of course you are "educated" on every subject, I forgot. You breath an air of superiority in most threads, and I'm simply not one who is going to lean back and act like a student of yours. I'm more than man enough to admit when I'm wrong, unlike you, but I don't run around claiming to be educated on a million subjects and telling everyone else that they are uneducated on subjects. I simply address the subjects back and forth with those who agree/disagree, and let threads take their courses.

[jimnyc]

Hi Jim. The quote(s) under this comment come from post #18 of this thread. Hope it helps. Your results may vary of course. It depends on the state. When looking for this I did note several supreme court decisions that upheld this sort of thing. IMO it's just one more reason to absolutly demand that Cops be held to a higher standard from recruitment all the way thru retirement.



Additional discussion of resistance to arrest can be found here (http://www.rayservers.com/blog/your-right-of-defense-against-unlawful-arrest). I do not vouch for the accuracy of every word on the website. From there I cross checked the Texas Penal Code. But, the discussion is interesting in an academic sort of way.

I do vouch for the accuracy of the Texas Penal Code which I cited above. The entire chapter can be found here. (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm)

Essentially, you do have the right to resist an unlawful arrest in Texas if the arresting officer is using excessive force. If it is say a Deputy Sheriff who just drawls, "Y'alls under arrest here boy" and makes a come along motion; you don't get to flip him off, kick his ass and haul ass.

Additionally, I've been told that using this defense places you in the position of proving your assertion in court. And, if you see Chapter 38 of the Texas Penal Code (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/PE/htm/PE.38.htm) you explicitly do not have the right to resist even an unlawful arrest or search except for conditions I quoted above from Chapter 9.

Hope this helps.

Like I said, it varies, and the courts will decide, but it's not a RIGHT. From within your link:



Sec. 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another.

(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful.

(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the actor uses a deadly weapon to resist the arrest or search.

</pre>

[pegwinn]

Like I said, it varies, and the courts will decide, but it's not a RIGHT. From within your link:

I get the idea that you are thinking I was trying to somehow slam you or take CH's side in y'alls spat. Nope, nada, nyet, nein, and uh uh. I thought you had a question and I merely provided the information I had already taken the time to look up. I'm not going to debate the definition of "Right" with you either since all it will do is piss us both off and I have no compelling interest in doing that.

[jimnyc]

I get the idea that you are thinking I was trying to somehow slam you or take CH's side in y'alls spat. Nope, nada, nyet, nein, and uh uh. I thought you had a question and I merely provided the information I had already taken the time to look up. I'm not going to debate the definition of "Right" with you either since all it will do is piss us both off and I have no compelling interest in doing that.

Nope, didn't take what you wrote as a slam at all. I thought your post was good, and even gave me some good reading in your links. Unfortunately, it just didn't settle, as you say, what is a "right". I think people CAN resist an unlawful arrest, but the legality will change depending on which state, as your link has shown, and of course the offense. I just don't think it's anyones "right" to resist an arrest, even though legally speaking they may ultimately have charges dropped. The "right" is to be heard via the judicial system and have them determine the legality.

[pegwinn]

Nope, didn't take what you wrote as a slam at all. I thought your post was good, and even gave me some good reading in your links. Unfortunately, it just didn't settle, as you say, what is a "right". I think people CAN resist an unlawful arrest, but the legality will change depending on which state, as your link has shown, and of course the offense. I just don't think it's anyones "right" to resist an arrest, even though legally speaking they may ultimately have charges dropped. The "right" is to be heard via the judicial system and have them determine the legality.

Right On. :thumb:

[fj1200]

None of you guys have ever argued on this board about the constitutionality of the TSA and their searches? Wow, I'm having bad dreams! LOL

You asked me about constitutionality, not those other "guys." If you want to have another TSA argument I'm all for it but let's keep it out of this argument.

[jimnyc]

You asked me about constitutionality, not those other "guys." If you want to have another TSA argument I'm all for it but let's keep it out of this argument.

If I'm wrong about what your stance was, I apologize. I "assumed" based on what I read, going on memory. And I have no defense for what else you wrote, so that means you're right, and I apologize for that too.

[OCA]

Mr. Professional Hypocrite.

I'm not the dickhead who runs around the board claiming to be a constitutional expert, having various degrees, being an expert and dozens of subjects and then claiming to be a Ranger, over and over throughout the board. I also don't run around claiming it's perfectly acceptable to call people nigger and other racist names, only to have a genuine debate and act as if it's a problem, or "dehumanizing", if one calls another a queer.

:laugh2:
:laugh2::laugh:

[jimnyc]

:laugh2:
:laugh2::laugh:

Don't laugh, you filthy no good greek prick! I hate you even more. Go eat glass.

[fj1200]

You quoted my post and then reply with a totally different scenario? I never said anything about anyone killing anyone.

I'm just trying to establish a baseline. Do I have the right to defend my life?


And yes, in your example, Rev's resisting would likely be "valid", but ultimately being valid doesn't mean it's a right. Again would be up to the courts to ultimately determine based on the evidence.

I never said that there wouldn't be consequences and that it's not reviewable by the courts or whatnot.


I'm done with that "what if's". You guys are hilarious, and hypocrites. There have been MANY cases in US history where arrests have been determined to be unlawful. Please provide me with the statistics on how many officers have been charged with kidnapping...

I'm not sure the relevance of that. Of course there have been instances where arrests are unlawful and admittedly taking deadly action against an unlawful arrest is extremely rare.

[OCA]

Don't laugh, you filthy no good greek prick! I hate you even more. Go eat glass.

Why? That was funny as hell and what made it even funnier is it was 100% true.

[jimnyc]

I'm just trying to establish a baseline. Do I have the right to defend my life?



I never said that there wouldn't be consequences and that it's not reviewable by the courts or whatnot.



I'm not sure the relevance of that. Of course there have been instances where arrests are unlawful and admittedly taking deadly action against an unlawful arrest is extremely rare.

I believe anyone has the right to self defense, both cops and civilians.

[jimnyc]

To make it a "fact", specifically what we're discussing, would be to say that this "right", if considered a right, exists in some cases but not others. It's not an absolute. But as per the law, about a dozen states allow one to resist an unlawful arrest. The rest of them still do not allow resisting. So that makes me MORE right is all. :thumb: And of course, even in the states where it is against the law to resist, I'm sure you can defend your life, or defend yourself from sexual assaults, as examples.


Can I Resist an Unlawful Arrest?

The answer to this question varies from state to state. The traditional rule was that the crime of resisting arrest included the assumption that the arrest was a legal one, so it was not a crime to resist an illegal arrest. Therefore, people could resist arrests made without authority to do so, such as arrests made under an invalid statute, or without a warrant or probable cause. However, many states have passed statutes limiting the ability of people to resist even unlawful arrests. Therefore, while it might be legal to resist an unlawful arrest, it will depend on the rules of the jurisdiction exactly what is allowed.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/resisting-an-unlawful-arrest.html

[logroller]

I see examples here getting cast about on kidnapping and great bodily injury-- for crying out loud -- IT WAS A TICKET. Sign it and be on your way.

Are those here who are outraged by the tazer use at all concerned that he gave a fake name?

I mean sure, stick to the man...just don't be surprised when he sticks you back. That's a rule too, its golden!

That or the officer should of just thought, oh well, OK, be on your way, lying's not suspicious at all:rolleyes:

If that were the rule of law, I can't imagine any law or rule ever being enforced.

"We're looking for Jeffrey Dahmer; but the guy living at Dahmer's residence said his name was John Doe, so we're out of leads." :lame2:

[jimnyc]

http://constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

Some comments I found about the quotations of those cases.

http://www.resistunlawfularrest.com/

The "main" thing stated on your link goes as follows:


“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”


And here is a little tidbit that addresses that:


The detailed analysis of this quote and two supporting cases is here (http://www.resistunlawfularrest.com/PlummerVState.html).


The main quote does NOT appear in any cited cases. I believe the author created this quote to buttress his argument.

Plummer v. State is about self-defense. Plummer was attacked (and shot at) without being told he was under arrest. This clearly refers to self-defense. This has nothing to do with an arrest. An arrest is not a "violent assault". Plummer had a right to defend himself. Case states that if the officer had informed Plummer of his arrest and then Plummer resisted, he could have been forcibly taken into custidy (or even killed).
In John Bad Elk v US, we will simply quote the following from Ballard v. State (in regards to JBE case):

It is the law that a person illegally arrested by an officer may resist that arrest, even to the extent of the taking of life if his own life or any great bodily harm is threatened.
John Bad Elk v. United States,177 U.S. 529, 44 L.Ed. 874, 20 S.Ct. 729; State v. Gum, 68 W.Va. 105, 69 S.E. 463, 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 150.
CONCLUSIONS:


You have the right of self-defense if an officer (or anyone else) attacks you or your life is in danger.
None of these cases support resisting an arrest (lawful or unlawful) unless your life is in danger.




Other cases addressed here as well. - http://www.resistunlawfularrest.com/

[jimnyc]

Well, I done did edumucate myself on dis here subject, and as it turns out, there is laws that allow one to resist unlawful arrest, in limited circumstances, whereas 3/4 of the nations states have laws against resisting unlawful arrests, sept in dire circumstances which are related to defending ones self.

Therefore, I believe the "right" is in reality laws, which I stated earlier, and these are addressed state by state, which I said earlier. <--- Sum1 else done tiped that for moi, i dont even no what there4 really means.

:salute: the rest of U who might be iffected with this uneducumated thing!

[fj1200]

Hmm, how to spin this my way... :laugh:


... sept in dire circumstances which are related to defending ones self.

Which is what I have been arguing and to which you agreed...


I believe anyone has the right to self defense, both cops and civilians.

And where your non-lawyer link concluded...


Other cases addressed here as well. - http://www.resistunlawfularrest.com/


CONCLUSIONS:

You have the right of self-defense if an officer (or anyone else) attacks you or your life is in danger.
None of these cases support resisting an arrest (lawful or unlawful) unless your life is in danger.


That last point though is where you have been debating from IMO. I think the only ways to resist arrest, without killing, are assault or flee. I don't think people are in general very successful in those so resisting merely gets you a beat down and arrested anyway.

[jimnyc]

That last point though is where you have been debating from IMO. I think the only ways to resist arrest, without killing, are assault or flee. I don't think people are in general very successful in those so resisting merely gets you a beat down and arrested anyway.

Well, my point was based on the subject of this thread, and towards resisting arrest in general. In this thread, the gentlemen had no right whatsoever to resist arrest. In general, and the overwhelming majority of the time, one cannot legally resist arrest, even if they feel the arrest is unlawful. In certain cases, as you mentioned, it's legal to resist an unlawful arrest and easily amounts to self defense.

But may main beef is saying it's a "right". We all know that our right basically go back to the bill of rights/US Constitution. Not to nitpick, but how many of those specified rights can legally be taken away via Federal/State/Local law?

I do concede that your main point from the beginning is correct, based on self defense. But that's why I even questioned why you changed the scenario I put forth, which was the arrest of a man for videotaping an officer, within the law.

[fj1200]

But that's why I even questioned why you changed the scenario I put forth, which was the arrest of a man for videotaping an officer, within the law.

I would say that resistance can mean different things and there should be some proportionality to it; Don't respond with force to a videotaping offense. The laws that you referenced are likely a good idea from an officer and civilian safety standpoint and assume the officer is acting on good faith.

But overall. :clap: Well played good sir.

[jimnyc]

I would say that resistance can mean different things and there should be some proportionality to it; Don't respond with force to a videotaping offense. The laws that you referenced are likely a good idea from an officer and civilian safety standpoint and assume the officer is acting on good faith.

But overall. :clap: Well played good sir.

I think you and I are in agreement. But the "right" thing is put to rest, as it comes down to the states and their laws as I suspected. Just funny that some were so quick to tell me how I wasn't reading, or that I wasn't educated on the issue, as if they were. Like I said and have proved a shitload of times, when proven wrong, I'm man enough to come back and admit when I'm wrong. Some have trouble doing so. But I don't need "apologies" or statements admitting anything to prove I am right, the facts speak for themselves.

[jimnyc]

You truly have no clue what you are talking about here Jim. Nothing to be ashamed about, it's not a subject one normally educates themselves on, but stop acting like you know it all. You don't.

This post is even funnier when I read it now. Don't be ashamed though, CH! Just stop acting like you know it all.


BWAHGAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :dance: <---- that's my victory dance for when someone talks shit and I then smear it all over them making them look dumb in the process. :laugh2:

[Sir Evil]

Don't be ashamed though, CH! Just stop acting like you know it all.


A three degree act at that! :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

A three degree act at that! :laugh2:

Hey, you going to Blockheads house to watch the game tomorrow? If so, both of you can take turns sucking from his tailpipe! :coffee:

[revelarts]

Well, my point was based on the subject of this thread, and towards resisting arrest in general. In this thread, the gentlemen had no right whatsoever to resist arrest. In general, and the overwhelming majority of the time, one cannot legally resist arrest, even if they feel the arrest is unlawful. In certain cases, as you mentioned, it's legal to resist an unlawful arrest and easily amounts to self defense.

But may main beef is saying it's a "right". We all know that our right basically go back to the bill of rights/US Constitution. Not to nitpick, but how many of those specified rights can legally be taken away via Federal/State/Local law?

I do concede that your main point from the beginning is correct, based on self defense. But that's why I even questioned why you changed the scenario I put forth, which was the arrest of a man for videotaping an officer, within the law.

I'm going to be a Bit of an AH again and stir the pot, -its my job ma'am-.

I agree with you on the idea that it's always a right to act in self defense as you said earlier. I agree with you that legally you can do one thing and not another in respect to police action.

Where I have a problem is when you say rights come from the constitution and bill of rights.
I think acorn and others have pointed this out several times too.
Rights are inherent, not given by the state. the constitution is only a communal contract where the people cede some authority to the state to do the things outlined in the constitution. and the bill of rights points a point on a few items that the people wanted clarified where definite no go areas for the fed gov't. All other INHERENT rights were "reserved to the states and to the people.".

the federal gov't doesn't grant Jack. It doesn't own our inherent right we are born with them as human beings whether we live in the U.S. or China, the state takes rights and assumes power it doesn't have inherently but by assumed AH-thori-TAH and by force .
if not we are literally owned by the state don't you think? if they give and take rights at will.

[OCA]

Hey, you going to Blockheads house to watch the game tomorrow? If so, both of you can take turns sucking from his tailpipe! :coffee:

Oh God, blockhead..............tell him if N.E. wins it will take him 3 days(if he can read) to go through all the shit I will put on his F.B. wall, he might as well jump into the Hudson and drown himself.

[jimnyc]

I'm going to be a Bit of an AH again and stir the pot, -its my job ma'am-.

I agree with you on the idea that's always a right to act in selff defense as you said earlier.

I agree with you that leagally you can one thing and not another in respect to police action.

Where I have a problem is when you say right come from the constitution and bill of rights.
I think acorn has pointed this out several times too.
Rights are inherent, not given by the state. the constitution is only a communal contract where the people ceed some athority to the state to do the things outlined in the constitution. and the bill of rights points a point on a few items that the people wanted clarified where definite no go areas for the fed gov't. All other INHERENT rights were "reserved to the states and to the people.".

the federal gov't doesn't grant Jack. It doesn't own our inherent right we are born with them as human beings whether we live in the U.S. or China, the state takes rights and assumes power it doesn't have inherently but by assumed AH-thori-TAH and by force .
if not we are literally owned by the state don't you think? if they give and take rights at will.

Wherever your rights come from, and I agree there are several places, resisting arrest is not one of them, even if the arrest is unlawful. If it were a true right, the government/state/locale wouldn't be able to create laws to specifically take away those rights. Save the other baloney. The place to determine what is lawful and what is unlawful is NOT on the street while being arrested. This will only lead to a struggle and perhaps worse. I know you're anti-government, but it's retarded to advocate citizens resisting arrest when an officer believes he has probable cause for an arrest. And unless your life is in danger, your recourse is through the judicial system.

[revelarts]

Wherever your rights come from, and I agree there are several places, resisting arrest is not one of them, even if the arrest is unlawful. If it were a true right, the government/state/locale wouldn't be able to create laws to specifically take away those rights. Save the other baloney. there's a whole thread there, so i ain't going there.



...The place to determine what is lawful and what is unlawful is NOT on the street while being arrested. This will only lead to a struggle and perhaps worse. I know you're anti-government, but it's retarded to advocate citizens resisting arrest when an officer believes he has probable cause for an arrest. And unless your life is in danger, your recourse is through the judicial system.
in general i agree, when the state is acting reasonable the judicial system is the best way to go.

I'll add this example to the mix, what if your a Jew in Germany and the cops come your home and ask you to go quietly , many did. What if they ask nicely under the law for you to get on the train to go to a concentration camp and you've heard rumors from "crazy" people about jews being tortured and killed in camps and you know your innocent. What if your in the camp etc.

As Gaffer and others have pointed out the world and many countries aren't very nice. Germany had been a HAVEN for Jews from persecution. Many Jews and other assumed the best until it was to late to save themselves.

You say I'm anti gov't, well basically i don't think gov't is nigh on God or deserves the benny of the doubt "just because" it's the gov't. Especially when we can all site 100's of examples where it doesn't follow it's own rules. The founders told us to be vigilant as to gov't activity.

[jimnyc]

there's a whole thread there, so i ain't going there.



in general i agree, when the state is acting reasonable the judicial system is the best way to go.

I'll add this example to the mix, what if your a Jew in Germany and the cops come your home and ask you to go quietly , many did. What if they ask nicely under the law for you to get on the train to go to a concentration camp and you've heard rumors from "crazy" people about jews being tortured and killed in camps and you know your innocent. What if your in the camp etc.

As Gaffer and others have pointed out the world and many countries aren't very nice. Germany had been a HAVEN for Jews from persecution. Many Jews and other assumed the best ntuil it was to late to save themselves.

You say I'm anti gov't, well basically i don't think gov't is nigh on God or deserves the benny of the doubt "just because" it's the gov't. Especially when we can all site 100's of examples where it doesn't follow it's own rules. The founders told us to be vigilant as to gov't activity.

We're talking arrests here, not concentration camps, and we're not in Germany. There isn't a right to resist arrest. It can be determined "legal" in certain scenarios, but it's not a right.

[revelarts]

:poke:


http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100918004130/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/2/2e/Bush_nazi_911.jpg/175px-Bush_nazi_911.jpg http://mynetbox.info/images/oddstuff/onazi.jpg

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm going to be a Bit of an AH again and stir the pot, -its my job ma'am-.

I agree with you on the idea that it's always a right to act in self defense as you said earlier. I agree with you that legally you can do one thing and not another in respect to police action.

Where I have a problem is when you say rights come from the constitution and bill of rights.
I think acorn and others have pointed this out several times too.
Rights are inherent, not given by the state. the constitution is only a communal contract where the people cede some authority to the state to do the things outlined in the constitution. and the bill of rights points a point on a few items that the people wanted clarified where definite no go areas for the fed gov't. All other INHERENT rights were "reserved to the states and to the people.".

the federal gov't doesn't grant Jack. It doesn't own our inherent right we are born with them as human beings whether we live in the U.S. or China, the state takes rights and assumes power it doesn't have inherently but by assumed AH-thori-TAH and by force .
if not we are literally owned by the state don't you think? if they give and take rights at will.

well said

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to revelarts again.

[LuvRPgrl]

Wherever your rights come from, and I agree there are several places, resisting arrest is not one of them, even if the arrest is unlawful. If it were a true right, the government/state/locale wouldn't be able to create laws to specifically take away those rights. Save the other baloney. The place to determine what is lawful and what is unlawful is NOT on the street while being arrested. This will only lead to a struggle and perhaps worse. I know you're anti-government, but it's retarded to advocate citizens resisting arrest when an officer believes he has probable cause for an arrest. And unless your life is in danger, your recourse is through the judicial system.

there is no judical system.

[jimnyc]

there is no judical system.

Ummmm..... ok.

[ConHog]

After a couple day's reflection and rereading this thread, I believe I owe Jim an apology. Not for disagreeing with him, but for coming across as an ass. I mean I am an ass. But I apologize anyway.

He's still wrong IMO, but that doesn't excuse my attitude.

[jimnyc]

After a couple day's reflection and rereading this thread, I believe I owe Jim an apology. Not for disagreeing with him, but for coming across as an ass. I mean I am an ass. But I apologize anyway.

He's still wrong IMO, but that doesn't excuse my attitude.

Damn, I hate when people do that. How am I supposed to remain being a dick after that. I enjoy being a dick and fighting and now you just took the air out of me! :lol:

I suppose I was a bit of an ass too, although I needed no reflection to see that, it was my intent towards the end there. So I suppose I have little alternative but to man up here as well and apologize for my half of the action in this thread. But I enjoyed it nonetheless! Maybe it was because I was in fact right, 100%, irrefutably! It was kind of ironic that I beat you so badly after y.... Oh, wait a minute, I forgot we were trying to get past that! :laugh2:

[ConHog]

Damn, I hate when people do that. How am I supposed to remain being a dick after that. I enjoy being a dick and fighting and now you just took the air out of me! :lol:

I suppose I was a bit of an ass too, although I needed no reflection to see that, it was my intent towards the end there. So I suppose I have little alternative but to man up here as well and apologize for my half of the action in this thread. But I enjoyed it nonetheless! Maybe it was because I was in fact right, 100%, irrefutably! It was kind of ironic that I beat you so badly after y.... Oh, wait a minute, I forgot we were trying to get past that! :laugh2:


My apology was merely for my behavior, it was not meant to reflect that you were right in this thread nor that you aren't a dickhead in general.


:laugh2:

Truth be told I apologized so that Shattered would be able to scream that I kiss your ass . :laugh:

[LuvRPgrl]

Ummmm..... ok.

its a psuedo legal system, nothing more, nothing less

[ConHog]

its a psuedo legal system, nothing more, nothing less

No its a full legal system. Debateable about how much justice is done though

[LuvRPgrl]

No its a full legal system. Debateable about how much justice is done though

no, its not fully legal on many fronts.
THE usurping of the Constitution, just for starters has given rise to laws that are unconstitutional, but the psuedo courts recognize them as law, although according to the highest law of the land, they are not.

Legalities are also circumvented in other ways.

[Jackson0]

Today i comeback in this community I just want to be a park ranger for 3 or 4 years because I need enough money to go to veterinary school. So, in Boston park rangers make enough money. But do I have to carry a gun which i need ?/

[taft2012]

But here's a list of COPS and Schools gone wild that show a bit of a pattern of schools and police thinking of the letter of the law and beyond it to some kind of quasi-prison mindset. some of this stuff is hard to believe. we report you decide.


Intriguing examples indeed. But allow me to offer another perspective you may not be considering, one I can speak of first hand I since I worked several years specializing in policing schools.

First thing to realize: The police officers are not sitting in the classrooms. Which means if there was a kid burping in a classroom the teacher or principal had to physically call the police officer to respond. When I went to school, teachers were able to handle such disruptions themselves. They didn't have to call 911.

Teachers have become so emasculated they have completely surrendered the role of classroom disciplinarian to the police. They're a bunch of liberals who so hate authority they simply can not bring themselves to say "Johnny, stop that incessant belching" or "Jenny, you put on too much perfume and it's making everyone sick. Go wash it off!"

So they call the police.

Now if the police respond and say "This is stupid, handle it yourself", then there is a strong risk of school administration filing a complaint against the officer for failing to correct the problem. In which case, the officer then comes under investigation for malfeasance and a bunch of Departmental charges and specifications, which would likely happen because what police department wants publicity that they're not helping our beloved teachers keep order in the schools our children attend.

If the officer does what they want, then he instantly becomes an internet anecdote of "over policing".

It's win-win for the liberal teachers, and lose-lose for the police.

And the parents nowadays don't make it any easier. Any discipline the teachers attempt to apply to their students gets no support from parents. Instead, parents assume the role of defense counsel and challenge the teacher. Which is another reason teachers push the disciplinarian role off to the police.

I've been investigating complaints against police officers for many years now, and typically the accounts start at a convenient place or simply leave out inconvenient facts.

OK, a police officer cited a kid for belching in the classroom. My question: Why was the officer in the classroom in the first place addressing the issue of a kid belching in the classroom?

An officer tased a man in the park for just walking away. My questions: how many such citations has the officer issued in the past without tasing the individual? How many times in his career has the officer used his taser? If the officer has 15 years experience, and this is the first time he has used his taser, perhaps the complainant's account of what happened is missing a few key factoids?

[revelarts]

Intriguing examples indeed. But allow me to offer another perspective you may not be considering, one I can speak of first hand I since I worked several years specializing in policing schools.

First thing to realize: The police officers are not sitting in the classrooms. Which means if there was a kid burping in a classroom the teacher or principal had to physically call the police officer to respond. When I went to school, teachers were able to handle such disruptions themselves. They didn't have to call 911.

Teachers have become so emasculated they have completely surrendered the role of classroom disciplinarian to the police. They're a bunch of liberals who so hate authority they simply can not bring themselves to say "Johnny, stop that incessant belching" or "Jenny, you put on too much perfume and it's making everyone sick. Go wash it off!"

So they call the police.

Now if the police respond and say "This is stupid, handle it yourself", then there is a strong risk of school administration filing a complaint against the officer for failing to correct the problem. In which case, the officer then comes under investigation for malfeasance and a bunch of Departmental charges and specifications, which would likely happen because what police department wants publicity that they're not helping our beloved teachers keep order in the schools our children attend.

If the officer does what they want, then he instantly becomes an internet anecdote of "over policing".

It's win-win for the liberal teachers, and lose-lose for the police.

And the parents nowadays don't make it any easier. Any discipline the teachers attempt to apply to their students gets no support from parents. Instead, parents assume the role of defense counsel and challenge the teacher. Which is another reason teachers push the disciplinarian role off to the police.

I've been investigating complaints against police officers for many years now, and typically the accounts start at a convenient place or simply leave out inconvenient facts.

OK, a police officer cited a kid for belching in the classroom. My question: Why was the officer in the classroom in the first place addressing the issue of a kid belching in the classroom?


Taft I hear what your saying, and I can see your point about teachers not having or taking the authority in the class and making a piss poor decission of pushing it over to the police.
But after that is where I'll push back a little. it's a theme of mine. WHY would the police allow them selves to be pressured into doing stupid stuff. There's No Law that says they need to police burping in class. What power of the teachers is Forcing to th police to do these things. you mention it's a lose lose situtation for the cops. well if it's lose lose why not pick the lose option that's closer to the constitution and the law and NOT taser 8 year old girls. If your gonna lose anyway. Why Not ere on the side the PEACE officer rather than NonLAW enforcement officer.
However since many have decided that they need to ere on the enforcement side we now make excuse for sidesteping into police state style schooling incidents. because of intergovernmetal political pressure?
Police have a hard enough job doing what they are paid to do. We often revere them for brave actions. standing up to the political pressure of a school principal doesn't seem like it'd be a life and death call. I posted a vid of a cop that didn't arrest when the TSA insisted. You see many in the public wildly supported that cops constitutional actions.



An officer tased a man in the park for just walking away. My questions: how many such citations has the officer issued in the past without tasing the individual? How many times in his career has the officer used his taser? If the officer has 15 years experience, and this is the first time he has used his taser, perhaps the complainant's account of what happened is missing a few key factoids?That's giving the officer all the benefits of the doubt. (often the case when police investigate other police) If we can do the same for the citizen that's fine. Let the investigation proceed.

But even if the guy had been a saint over a 20 year period. it doesn't wipe out a bad action if it was committed.

If I've treated my wife great for 20 years but today she burnt the toast and i decide to punch her in the mouth and knock some teeth out. the judge/jury might take the past into account but the action is still wrong. No amount of other factoids will make that punch right.

[taft2012]

WHY would the police allow them selves to be pressured into doing stupid stuff. There's No Law that says they need to police burping in class. What power of the teachers is Forcing to th police to do these things. you mention it's a lose lose situtation for the cops. well if it's lose lose why not pick the lose option that's closer to the constitution and the law and NOT taser 8 year old girls. If your gonna lose anyway. Why Not ere on the side the PEACE officer rather than NonLAW enforcement officer. In a political discussion on a political forum it is easy to discuss "the police" as a political entity. In real life, police officers are just guys, with wives and kids, and bills and mortgages to pay. If school administrators make a complaint against the officer for dereliction of duty in one of these cases he's going to have to endure the stress of an internal investigation and possible discipline. The teacher, meanwhile, has nothing to worry about. And the investigation into the police officer will proceed with questioning like... "Was this belching a persistent behavior disrupting a proceeding?" "Yes" "...and did the individual in question disregard repeated directions to cease this behavior?" "Yes." ".... and is this not the very definition of Penal Law Section 240:14, etc....?" "Yes." "So knowing this Penal Law section, and witnessing the violation, and having a complainant in front of you, why did you fail to take police action?" "Ummmmm....." It's a bit unfair to expect the lowly police officers on patrol to risk their personal livelihoods to rectify why you may, correctly or incorrectly, perceive to be unconstitutional law enforcement. As a patrolman I have to act in manners most likely to keep me out of trouble and not put my family in economic straits. But there are other reasons to keep your jacket clean as well. Suppose you have to taser a guy in the park and he makes an excessive force complaint against you, conveniently omitting from the complaint everything he did to cause the tasing. You want to have a sterling force record when they investigate you, rather than numerous complaints of dereliction of duty.
However since many have decided that they need to ere on the enforcement side we now make excuse for sidesteping into police state style schooling incidents. because of intergovernmetal political pressure? Police have a hard enough job doing what they are paid to do. We often revere them for brave actions. standing up to the political pressure of a school principal doesn't seem like it'd be a life and death call. I posted a vid of a cop that didn't arrest when the TSA insisted. You see many in the public wildly supported that cops constitutional actions. That's giving the officer all the benefits of the doubt. (often the case when police investigate other police) If we can do the same for the citizen that's fine. Let the investigation proceed. But even if the guy had been a saint over a 20 year period. it doesn't wipe out a bad action if it was committed. If I've treated my wife great for 20 years but today she burnt the toast and i decide to punch her in the mouth and knock some teeth out. the judge/jury might take the past into account but the action is still wrong. No amount of other factoids will make that punch right. I'm not saying a clean record automatically marks a police officer justified. I'm saying I've heard enough of these stories to recognize something is missing, and I can't begin to say if the officer was justified or not based on what's presented here. People have the right to complain about the police to their hearts' content. But to what end? For personnel in the internal affairs mechanisms in some Departments it advances their own careers to find field officers guilty of misconduct, oftentimes on no substantial basis. In which case the officer has to personally hire his own legal representation to preserve his livelihood. It's a mess. And turning a regular working guy into a political handball between political agendas is neither fair, nor an effective way to carry forth an agenda.

[revelarts]

In a political discussion on a political forum it is easy to discuss "the police" as a political entity. In real life, police officers are just guys, with wives and kids, and bills and mortgages to pay. If school administrators make a complaint against the officer for dereliction of duty in one of these cases he's going to have to endure the stress of an internal investigation and possible discipline. The teacher, meanwhile, has nothing to worry about. And the investigation into the police officer will proceed with questioning like... "Was this belching a persistent behavior disrupting a proceeding?" "Yes" "...and did the individual in question disregard repeated directions to cease this behavior?" "Yes." ".... and is this not the very definition of Penal Law Section 240:14, etc....?" "Yes." "So knowing this Penal Law section, and witnessing the violation, and having a complainant in front of you, why did you fail to take police action?" "Ummmmm....." It's a bit unfair to expect the lowly police officers on patrol to risk their personal livelihoods to rectify why you may, correctly or incorrectly, perceive to be unconstitutional law enforcement. As a patrolman I have to act in manners most likely to keep me out of trouble and not put my family in economic straits. But there are other reasons to keep your jacket clean as well. Suppose you have to taser a guy in the park and he makes an excessive force complaint against you, conveniently omitting from the complaint everything he did to cause the tasing. You want to have a sterling force record when they investigate you, rather than numerous complaints of dereliction of duty.

It's not an easy position to be put in. But Taft now your telling me that it's not only the teachers and principals fault that a kid gets tasered but it really is partly the police fault. The Officer feels compelled to act because of pressure from the police force, police rules, police force pressures, not only teachers. To keep his job by doing certain things in certain situations, no matter that it's a school and small children, involved in minor BS disruptions.
Ok... well
Based on what you telling me it seem like the Cop feels compelled to say
'Screw the kids, screw the constitution I've got to put food on the table. If i wanna keep my job i'm going to "have to" put the kid down for the count.
I may not want it to seem like a police state action but the police political structure and teaching political reality FORCE me to to do it.'

so it all fine then?
no harm no foul?

Look It's not that i'm completely unsympathetic, Again, it appears we have another situation where the police on the street and the soldier on the field are the tip of the spear. They are tasked with carrying out the bad unconstitutional behavior (though swore to do otherwise) and generally do not have institutional backup to let them bow out gracefully or without apparently having to fall on their swords.

I still say the police have a choice. Whether the moral choice is enough for them to do what rights when faced with the consequences is for each man and woman to make. But make no mistake, each bad choice make it easier for the next guy to do the same or worse. And normalizes the bad police state like actions. It's a high price to paid as a country so the police can keep a job. 'I was just following orders.' sell insurance instead.

No matter what the excuse is. Frankly a police state like school because 'a mans got to put food on the table', is no better than one because the cop, the police and the schools believe in fascism. A boot on your neck, is still boot on your neck.
It's no comfort that's it's there because the the policemen was just trying to keep his job.