1 shot, 1 million killed ... Hmm.
School teacher killed by police for rolling up her car window
- Thread starter hillbilly123069
- Start date
GunnyFreedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 32,882
I am the same. Indeed, there is a rather large and robust American tradition of the completely innocent being as uncooperative with the police as possible. Contrary to what some people see on Law and order and NCIS, a great many of us were taught from a very young age that if you do not exercise your rights, you lose them. Certainly current events are bearing that warning out, thus inspiring even more completely innocent people to start exercising our rights.
Somehow Mr. Miko does not realize that this is a solid American tradition that goes all the way back to our founding as a nation. I suppose when you look at the world through blue-colored classes, that's what happens.
GunnyFreedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 32,882
Indeed, terrorists like these things called "Dead Man's Switches" that so long as they are holding it it's ok, but as soon as they let go BOOM!
So if there really is a 56 year old female Christian terrorist Sunday School teacher with a nuclear bomb, the last thing you want to do is shoot them if you cannot locate the detonation circuit, because if you do you could end up being the guy who destroyed the city!
phill4paul
Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 46,967
I am also with AF and GunnyFreedom in this matter. I do not buy into this "If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear mentality." I have done nothing wrong. And the fear I have of regarding meek subjugation to an 'authority' figure,and the knowledge that if given an inch a mile will be sought after, is quite real.
Lethalmiko
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2011
- Messages
- 389
Before I respond more specifically to those that have said something sensible, let me raise something else in line with this discussion.
SCENARIO ONE
Imagine that two policemen go to arrest a first offender for a small non-violent crime (eg not paying parking tickets or something similar), but the person resists arrest. The person does not hurt or threaten to hurt the officers during the attempted arrest. He does not run away but just keeps "dancing around" almost within reach but each time the officers try to handcuff him, he blocks or wriggles his way out without striking anyone. The officers do not have tazers or anything else to incapacitate the guy from a distance. Should the officers use physical force to arrest the guy or just leave him alone and come back later?
SCENARIO TWO
A non-violent junkie who is ordered to go into drug rehab by a judge decides to stay home instead. The judge after finding out has him arrested for contempt of court. Do you agree with the law which says that he should be arrested for disobeying the orders of the court?
SCENARIO THREE
A guy who is arrested on the street for matching the description of a crime suspect refuses to give his name or address to interrogating officers. He refuses to cooperate in any way and even stops speaking. Each time someone attempts to talk to him, he shows them the middle finger. He has no criminal record, is not in the fingerprint database and there is no way to identify him positively at that point. Should he be locked up in jail until he gives his name or should he be allowed to walk?
NOTE: Whatever your answers, kindly give your reasoning and/or legal basis.
SCENARIO ONE
Imagine that two policemen go to arrest a first offender for a small non-violent crime (eg not paying parking tickets or something similar), but the person resists arrest. The person does not hurt or threaten to hurt the officers during the attempted arrest. He does not run away but just keeps "dancing around" almost within reach but each time the officers try to handcuff him, he blocks or wriggles his way out without striking anyone. The officers do not have tazers or anything else to incapacitate the guy from a distance. Should the officers use physical force to arrest the guy or just leave him alone and come back later?
SCENARIO TWO
A non-violent junkie who is ordered to go into drug rehab by a judge decides to stay home instead. The judge after finding out has him arrested for contempt of court. Do you agree with the law which says that he should be arrested for disobeying the orders of the court?
SCENARIO THREE
A guy who is arrested on the street for matching the description of a crime suspect refuses to give his name or address to interrogating officers. He refuses to cooperate in any way and even stops speaking. Each time someone attempts to talk to him, he shows them the middle finger. He has no criminal record, is not in the fingerprint database and there is no way to identify him positively at that point. Should he be locked up in jail until he gives his name or should he be allowed to walk?
NOTE: Whatever your answers, kindly give your reasoning and/or legal basis.
Last edited:
pcosmar
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 54,940
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
and lastly,, Police should NOT EXIST in a free society.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
LOL...i'm sorry, i know you want a reasonable discourse, but geezus...this is so funny, i can't help but to just laugh at this...
pcosmar
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 54,940
It would be funny if it were not so damn sad.
i should add that while laughing, i was doing a double face palm, while shaking my head.
Anti Federalist
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 117,638
No. The man isn't being violent towards the police officers. The man's only crime is that of something non-violent. With reasonable suspicion we can come to the conclusion that this man is not a violent criminal, and does not deserve to be treated in a violent manner. The Constitution is pretty straightforward when it comes to things like this.
I absolutely disagree, not because of the dodging court issue, but because of the order that he must go to drug rehab in the first place. The drug war is unconstitutional. No where in the constitution does it give the federal government the right to criminalize a substance. Policing crimes of this nature is a drain on taxpayer money, and a violation of civil liberties.
Warning: RANT INCOMING.
You cannot protect people from themselves. I know this first hand. I have several suicide attempts under my belt, and you know who saved me from death? Hint: It wasn't the government. This whole idea of protecting people from themselves is ludicrous. If the government tried to protect me from myself, here are the things that would now be illegal: Car exhaust, knives and hot water, alcohol, ambien, and Tylenol. Quite frankly, I'm amazed that I'm still alive today, and haven't suffered liver damage or something fatal of the sort. For a two week period I was actually saving up my allowance to purchase a helium hood, and helium, over the internet. I say this not as a means for sympathy, but to show a contrast of just how fucked up I was then, when I believed the government was my only solution, compared to how relatively stable I am now that I've learned my destiny is in my own hands.
I hope this sort of discussion doesn't make anyone uncomfortable. I am not trying to get sympathy, because quite frankly I now love my life. I talk about my suicide issues openly because I feel it brings a certain perspective to the argument that otherwise might be lacking. I was once on the edge of getting welfare. I was so close to giving up on life, on my own future, and just accepting that the government would take care of me; that the government could protect me. Thankfully, somewhere along this road to nowhere, I saw Ron Paul giving a speech. Intrigued, I bought one of his books. I devoured it, and then I went on to find these forums, and lurked here, religiously, for weeks on end. I learned the message of liberty and I've never looked back. Being on welfare, to me, is like a more socially acceptable form of imprisonment. This became even more clear to me when I saw places like Florida passing drug-test-the-welfare-people laws.
Had the government gotten involved with me and involuntarily forced me into a mental health institution, I probably would have gotten worse. Why? Because for me, any form of imprisonment is detrimental to my mental well being. As it stands, my friends and family managed to get me voluntary help, and after a lot of work I went from suicidal + living off of parents dime, to being non-suicidal and working near full time.
He should be allowed to walk. The constitution, again, is pretty straightforward on this. You are not required, as a citizen, to tell the police officer anything. You are not required to answer any questions they ask. This is not even up for debate in America. You have a RIGHT to these things, even after being convicted via Miranda rights: You have the right to remain silent...
Last edited:
Anti Federalist
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 117,638
Thanks! I appreciate the comment and the rep. It's good to know that, at least to some people, I can make sense.
Sometimes I feel like I'm shouting at a brick wall that wants nothing more than to just fall over and crush me under the weight: "No, Jonathan. You don't know how to best handle the genetic disorder you've had for your entire life. We the politicians do. It only makes logical sense that someone who has never dealt with bipolar II should know how to best treat it, don't you think? No? Well, how about some mental hospital? I hear they have good... Uh... Look, just get in the cage, buddy. It's for your own self interest. And if imprisonment doesn't help you, well, we'll just have to keep you imprisoned until it does."
Last edited:
Danke
Top Rated Influencer
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 44,263
"Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
Fleeing felons may be followed into places not open to the public without a warrant if the officer is in "hot pursuit." See Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, [2], 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782."
Fleeing felons may be followed into places not open to the public without a warrant if the officer is in "hot pursuit." See Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, [2], 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782."
There is no disputing against a man denying principles.
Lethalmiko
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2011
- Messages
- 389
Nobody has answered the questions I asked in my first two scenarios. I will make my point nevertheless and then get back to the earlier comments later. In this post, I will give my own opinion, without necessarily agreeing with current law.
PREAMBLE
How do the police deal with a person resisting arrest? In my scenario one, some of you may possibly sympathize with the guy and feel that the police should not use strong physical force to arrest him. But suppose he is accused of murdering a 54 year old church going woman and all the other things I described in the scenario remain exactly the same? I bet you will all agree that he needs to be arrested by any means necessary.
So the essential question is this: Why are the police morally and legally allowed to use force to arrest him, considering that he is not hurting or threatening to hurt anyone while resisting arrest? I believe the simple answer is that he is subverting the natural course of justice. He is preventing the law from taking its course. The reason that you get locked up for contempt of court is that you are frustrating the judicial process.
Jonathanm unfortunately is focusing on the trees intead of seeing the forest. I could have easily replaced the drug rehab thing with an order to do community service. The specific court order is irrelevant since I was asking about whether everyone in here agrees with locking up someone for contempt of court or not. There is no need to preach to the choir since I am against the anti-drug laws and the accompanying war. Freedom means you are free to do whatever despicable shit you want to yourself. Just don't infringe on other people's rights.
The third scenario is admittedly a difficult one since it depends on other factors. Suppose the arrested guy was identified on a lineup for a crime? Without knowing his name, it is entirely possible he may end up wrongly convicted in a case of mistaken identity. He may have a twin brother or look-alike who committed the actual crime but is in hiding. So contrary to what Jonathanm claims, it is not "pretty straightforward". It gets more complicated when he is taken into court and refuses to answer the question about his names and address which will probably be looked at as contempt of court (I am not sure).
FLEEING SUSPECTS
I submit that a fleeing suspect is doing the exact same thing as the guy resisting arrest or the guy who ignores a court order. They are all subverting the course of justice and making it impossible for due process to happen. If you agree with the logic in the modified first scenario that force should be used if necessary to arrest the alledged murderer, then applying it to a fleeing suspect should logically follow. Whether or not a crime has been committed is irrelevant, and guilt or innocence proved is also irrelevant (we are arresting someone who has been accused of murder but not yet found guilty).
The fleeing suspect of course is being chased based on reasonable suspicion, but the point is that he is also frustrating the law and should therefore not be tolerated. Reasonable suspicion is a legal basis to briefly detain someone, and if necessary frisk them for weapons. This legal procedure carries just as much weight as a judge sentencing you to community service. If you are not allowed to subvert justice by ignoring the court's decision, why should you be allowed to in the Terry Stop situation?
This is my basis for arguing that a fleeing suspect should be stopped by lethal force if necessary and I think that it should not matter whether the suspect is a threat to anyone or not. Of course lethal force should only be used as a last resort. In the case of a mental patient, it is possible someone may be unfortunately gunned down but this is very unlikely, and the same argument can also apply to someone facing arrest who resists and is insane.
PREAMBLE
How do the police deal with a person resisting arrest? In my scenario one, some of you may possibly sympathize with the guy and feel that the police should not use strong physical force to arrest him. But suppose he is accused of murdering a 54 year old church going woman and all the other things I described in the scenario remain exactly the same? I bet you will all agree that he needs to be arrested by any means necessary.
So the essential question is this: Why are the police morally and legally allowed to use force to arrest him, considering that he is not hurting or threatening to hurt anyone while resisting arrest? I believe the simple answer is that he is subverting the natural course of justice. He is preventing the law from taking its course. The reason that you get locked up for contempt of court is that you are frustrating the judicial process.
Jonathanm unfortunately is focusing on the trees intead of seeing the forest. I could have easily replaced the drug rehab thing with an order to do community service. The specific court order is irrelevant since I was asking about whether everyone in here agrees with locking up someone for contempt of court or not. There is no need to preach to the choir since I am against the anti-drug laws and the accompanying war. Freedom means you are free to do whatever despicable shit you want to yourself. Just don't infringe on other people's rights.
The third scenario is admittedly a difficult one since it depends on other factors. Suppose the arrested guy was identified on a lineup for a crime? Without knowing his name, it is entirely possible he may end up wrongly convicted in a case of mistaken identity. He may have a twin brother or look-alike who committed the actual crime but is in hiding. So contrary to what Jonathanm claims, it is not "pretty straightforward". It gets more complicated when he is taken into court and refuses to answer the question about his names and address which will probably be looked at as contempt of court (I am not sure).
FLEEING SUSPECTS
I submit that a fleeing suspect is doing the exact same thing as the guy resisting arrest or the guy who ignores a court order. They are all subverting the course of justice and making it impossible for due process to happen. If you agree with the logic in the modified first scenario that force should be used if necessary to arrest the alledged murderer, then applying it to a fleeing suspect should logically follow. Whether or not a crime has been committed is irrelevant, and guilt or innocence proved is also irrelevant (we are arresting someone who has been accused of murder but not yet found guilty).
The fleeing suspect of course is being chased based on reasonable suspicion, but the point is that he is also frustrating the law and should therefore not be tolerated. Reasonable suspicion is a legal basis to briefly detain someone, and if necessary frisk them for weapons. This legal procedure carries just as much weight as a judge sentencing you to community service. If you are not allowed to subvert justice by ignoring the court's decision, why should you be allowed to in the Terry Stop situation?
This is my basis for arguing that a fleeing suspect should be stopped by lethal force if necessary and I think that it should not matter whether the suspect is a threat to anyone or not. Of course lethal force should only be used as a last resort. In the case of a mental patient, it is possible someone may be unfortunately gunned down but this is very unlikely, and the same argument can also apply to someone facing arrest who resists and is insane.
Last edited:
Similar threads
