School teacher killed by police for rolling up her car window

[azxd]

A madman is punished by his madness alone.

 

[pcosmar]

Nobody has answered the questions I asked in my first two scenarios.

FLEEING SUSPECTS

I thought I had. But possibly I was too subtle.
http://constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.txt

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

“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.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without
affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction,
and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the
arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will
be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111.
491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v.
Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau,
241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right
to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by
force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense,
his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80;
Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an
arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by
the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private
individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State,
26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State,
43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to
be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in
defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and
battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case,
the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer
and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v.
Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as
he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus
it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an
officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without
resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In
his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which
the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various
branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be
no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the
Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded,
‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by
human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in
extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous
injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford
University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the
case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable,
and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of
the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the
peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy
v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

 

[Lethalmiko]

I make it a point to be as recalcitrant, silent and uncooperative as possible, (At least that how I'm sure the government enforcers see it, to me I am just standing firm and exercising my rights.) whenever I have any dealings with police, TSA, DHS or any other governmental regulatory body, which, in my line of work, I come across on fairly regular basis. In your world, which is pretty much what we have here, I have to seriously concern myself with getting shot in the back for being uncooperative.

There is a flip side to this. Being uncooperative may delay the process of getting to the real culprit. Police may end up wasting precious time trying to eliminate you from the list of suspects. I am not suggesting you just take any crap from the police. Cooperation with the police and exercising your rights are not mutually exclusive.

I never said any such thing about Watts. All I said is that he was not a school "official" and therefore anything he says is third hand information, as opposed to an eyewitness.

How do you know how he got his information? Is it impossible for him to have seen the encounter between Cook and the school staff?

Since we're playing the what if games, let me give you a list of reasons as to why an innocent person might run from the police.

*What if the person is mentally ill, for example a paranoid schizophrenic, and has irrational fears that someone is out to get him? Statistically speaking, the vast majority of schizophrenics are benign, and of no threat to the public. Yet, because of his mental illness, you have now given the officers a right to shoot him dead. Doesn't that seem just a little bit unjust, to you? After all, no one chooses to get schizophrenia. A schizophrenic man actually lives at the extended stay motel that my parents own, and if officers ever came for him he would run, despite the fact that he is a law abiding citizen.

*What if the person is running because he fears the police?

*What if the police officers in this particular stretch of town are known to be corrupt, and racist?

*What if someone happens to start running at the moment a police officer walks by?

*What if the person isn't aware the police are chasing him? Perhaps he's wearing earbuds and was out for a run.

*What if the person doesn't hear the police officers properly identify themselves and it is dark outside?

*What if the person has a psychological reasoning for the flight response? Maybe they were recently raped, or assaulted, and the police officer scared them on his approach. Maybe, when they were growing up, a squad of twelve drug task force agents raided the wrong home, killed the family dog, and caused lasting psychological fear of police?

*What if the person running has seen a youtube video where the police officer in question had engaged in police brutality? For example, if an officer had done something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4, would you still say that an innocent shouldn't run from him? Would you still say that, under these circumstances, the officer has a right to shoot said runner?

* I addressed mental illness in post #538.

* Fear of the police or other psychological reasons are not acceptable either. Anyone can claim that as an excuse for anything.

* Running away because police are corrupt/racist is like refusing to appear for trial before a judge who is known to be corrupt.

* Some of these do not apply because they do not involve someone specifically identified.

* If you did not hear the police identify themselves and it is dark outside, you may end up shot. However, once the police are in pursuit, they should shout at you again to stop and fire warning shots. Surely by then you should know who they are.

If your life is in danger, then you should run as I have said before.

"Lethal" and his toady Butchie are obviously not here to make friends and they don't seem to embrace any of RP's ideals. Perhaps we can speculate why they are really here....

I was not aware that everybody (apart from me and a few others) who come here do it to make friends. I also didn't know I don't embrace RP's ideals. Please, keep showing me what else I don't know. Don't forget to PM me when you finally compile the report about the real reasons I am here. Or you could just cut it short by concluding I am paid by the police state to bring confusion here and prevent Dr Paul from winning.

No, of course not, that would not be my first thought.

So your first thought would be what exactly?

In a sick way, I'm even thankful to "Lethal" and Butchie for helping us understand the psychological damage that the police state apparatus has inflicted unto itself.

Please continue the speculation. Why stop here?

Police have no obligation to protect you:

Is that so? If someone has broken into my house and I call them, do they have the luxury of not showing up at all? Why don't they stop patrolling the streets then? What is the point after all?

The cases you quoted have nothing to do with what we are discussing. Someone injured in their private home obviously cannot sue the police for failing to prevent it happening, any more than I can sue the police for a drunken driver hitting into me and causing me physical injury. Police are not there to prevent all crimes. They can only do what is reasonable. They definitely have an obligation to intervene when a crime is in progress to protect my rights from being violated. The fact that they often fail proves nothing WRT this discussion. One of the things that needs to be sorted out is repealing these stupid anti-gun laws that allow criminals to have free reign. There would be much less need for policemen. I shall return later to comment on the argument some make that a public police force should not even exist.

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.

Completely taken my comments out of context.

 

[pcosmar]

What is the point after all?

Damn good question.
They should not exist in the first place.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

 

[mikeforliberty]

I can't believe 1. this thread is still going and 2. you haven't all added lethalmiko to your ignore list.

 

[AFPVet]

Is that so? If someone has broken into my house and I call them, do they have the luxury of not showing up at all? Why don't they stop patrolling the streets then? What is the point after all?

Refer to Castle Rock v. Gonzales. AF was merely referencing this Supreme Court case which states that police have no constitutional obligation to protect you; however, they are bound by their department policies which dictate their actions.

The cases you quoted have nothing to do with what we are discussing. Someone injured in their private home obviously cannot sue the police for failing to prevent it happening, any more than I can sue the police for a drunken driver hitting into me and causing me physical injury. Police are not there to prevent all crimes. They can only do what is reasonable. They definitely have an obligation to intervene when a crime is in progress to protect my rights from being violated. The fact that they often fail proves nothing WRT this discussion. One of the things that needs to be sorted out is repealing these stupid anti-gun laws that allow criminals to have free reign. There would be much less need for policemen.

I shall return later to comment on the argument some make that a public police force should not even exist.

Let me save you the trouble... once more, some people get confused about this. Most state constitutions do not mention "police"... they do however, mention "sheriffs, marshals.... Sheriffs can have their deputies—just as marshals.

 

[azxd]

Is that so? If someone has broken into my house and I call them, do they have the luxury of not showing up at all? Why don't they stop patrolling the streets then? What is the point after all?

Ignorance of facts excuses, ignorance of law does not excuse.

Re-read the thread ... Your argument has already been defeated.

 

[azxd]

I can't believe 1. this thread is still going and 2. you haven't all added lethalmiko to your ignore list.

I'm testing how long this insanity will be continued

 

[Travlyr]

"Badges? ... We Don't Need No Stinking Badges."

 

[pcosmar]

I can't believe 1. this thread is still going and 2. you haven't all added lethalmiko to your ignore list.

I do not ignore. There are none on my ignore list.

I prefer to keep up with those spewing nonsense,, and to counter it.

 

[Lethalmiko]

Refer to Castle Rock v. Gonzales. AF was merely referencing this Supreme Court case which states that police have no constitutional obligation to protect you; however, they are bound by their department policies which dictate their actions. Let me save you the trouble... once more, some people get confused about this. Most state constitutions do not mention "police"... they do however, mention "sheriffs, marshals.... Sheriffs can have their deputies—just as marshals.

"The Court's majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia held that enforcement of the restraining order was not mandatory under Colorado law; were a mandate for enforcement to exist, it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement under the precedent of Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth; and even if there were a protected individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order, such entitlement would have no monetary value and hence would not count as property for the Due Process Clause. Justice David Souter wrote a concurring opinion, using the reasoning that enforcement of a restraining order is a process, not the interest protected by the process, and that there is not due process protection for processes."
Castle Rock v. Gonzales

The police are not mentioned in the constitution and one can argue from that angle that they have no constitutional obligation to protect you. This is not my argument. Social security is not in the constitution. If the government stops sending SS checks to seniors, can they be sued for this? Are sheriffs or marshals obliged to protect you?

I can't believe 1. this thread is still going and 2. you haven't all added lethalmiko to your ignore list.

I'm testing how long this insanity will be continued

More silly comments. No one is putting a gun to your head to take part in this discussion.

 

[TheTexan]

Lethalmiko, there's a hundred different constitutional reasons you're wrong, a hundred different moral reasons you're wrong, but in the end it comes down to this: you don't shoot grandmas in the back. To justify that... is sick.

 

[SirPaul]

TPTB have trained cops to be animals - they WANT a war. It's that simple.

Did Obama give special speech or special permission to police officers who are out of control?

Police violence is highest under Obama's false rule.

 

[Butchie]

I agree with you and Jonathanm.

The MODS are great for keeping this thread open. In a sick way, I'm even thankful to "Lethal" and Butchie for helping us understand the psychological damage that the police state apparatus has inflicted unto itself.

Umm, I actually haven't even been in this thread for a few days and only saw this cuz someone PM'd it to me, I'd say these negative remarks thrown my way are pretty uncalled for, you don't agree with me fine, (assuming you even knew what I was saying as most of you don't since you are blindly lumping me in as someone else's "toadie") but there's no need for this.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Lethalmiko, there's a hundred different constitutional reasons you're wrong, a hundred different moral reasons you're wrong, but in the end it comes down to this: you don't shoot grandmas in the back. To justify that... is sick.

The only thing this woman appears to be guilty of is "Contempt of Cop".

That is a executable, capital, offense in Amerika these days.

 

[azxd]

More silly comments. No one is putting a gun to your head to take part in this discussion.

True ... But then this form of distorted entertainment you provide would go silent.

Keep at it !!!
You've obviously got something to prove to the World

 

[jmdrake]

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?

He should call for backup and wait patiently until it arrives.

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?

Do you actually know how these laws work? This means that he's violated his probation. The judge doesn't order an arrest for "contempt of court". That's silly. The junkie's probation record is updated to show he's violated his probation. Police officers don't waste time trying to chase this guy down. But the next time he's pulled over for anything the fact that he's violated his probation shows up on their record and they'll take him in. I've seen a case where someone is in court for one thing, it shows up on the record that there is an outstanding warrant for something else (sometimes people just forget) and the person gets taken into custody.

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.

Your scenario three is incompetent. There's no way to identify him? You have no witnesses? Then how on earth do you have a description of him? What difference does it make if you have his name or not? Someone's name isn't what makes them innocent or guilty of a crime. And what exactly does "matching a description" even mean? "Tall black man wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt"? Regardless, the idea that you could "lock someone up until he tells you his name" is ridiculous. One of the basic rights everybody knows they have is the right to remain silent. And that silence can not be used against you. If someone refuses to talk at all the police simply have to build up their case (if they have one) without that information. You probably won't make bond if you never give the police your name, but the court still has to set you a speedy trial date and the state has to prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Jonathanm]

In the case of a mental patient, it is possible someone may be unfortunately gunned down but this is very unlikely

Ah, I see. You're willing to accept a certain amount of innocent people being gunned down. That is why we can't agree. I would rather a guilty man go free than an innocent man be wrongly killed.

Also, why would this be very unlikely? Schizophrenia affects roughly one percent of the population. Not all of them are paranoid schizophrenics, but I'd argue all forms of schizophrenia could lead to running from police. Many schizophrenics are also more likely to be considered 'a suspect' by police officers, due to exhibiting certain strange tendencies, especially when off medications.

Furthermore, I wasn't even addressing other possibilities. All of the below can lead to hallucinations and/or delirium.

* PTSD
* Anxiety disorders
* Depersonalization/Derealization (Caused by a wide variety of disorders, including bipolar, depersonalization disorder, anxiety, and other dissociative disorders)
* Severe Insomnia
* Bipolar I (Manic episodes)
* Alzheimers disease
* Narcolepsy
* Brain tumors
* High body temperatures
* Endocrine diseases.

 

[Lethalmiko]

Lethalmiko, there's a hundred different constitutional reasons you're wrong, a hundred different moral reasons you're wrong, but in the end it comes down to this: you don't shoot grandmas in the back. To justify that... is sick.

Name one. What exactly am I wrong about? And please stop being dishonest.

-------

Some argue that we do not need a professional police force since it is not in the constitution. Volunteer sheriffs and marshals and private citizens will do the job. While we are all in agreement that the police has been abused by the govt to erode people's rights, I have some concerns about this no-professional-police scenario that perhaps someone will be kind enough to address.

1. The constitution was written at a time when the population of America was about 4 million (they could have all fitted in LA). Unemployment was low and life was simple. By the time the first professional police services were established, there were about 20 million people. We now have over 300 million people and higher unemployment. Considering the sheer magnitude of cases, is it realistic to expect law enforcement to be left to volunteers?

2. In today's complex world with huge demands on our time, how easy would it be to find enough volunteers?

3. Back then, there were no advanced guns like we have now. How do volunteers take on criminals with automatic weapons? Why would anyone risk their lives?

4. Even if you manage to have enough people in a volunteer police force, they have to be trained as professionals to handle advanced criminals. How do you pay for the special training?

5. How do you handle issues to do with nationwide crime prevention through fingerprinting and other criminal databases?

6. Removing restrictions on gun ownership, ending the war on drugs and decriminalizing them would certainly reduce crime drastically. Would it be enough to make a volunteer police force feasible?

7. If citizens are to become part of law enforcement, should we allow them to have automatic weapons to take on the big bad guys? What are the implications of having millions of AKs in circulation?

 

[Lethalmiko]

Ah, I see. You're willing to accept a certain amount of innocent people being gunned down. That is why we can't agree. I would rather a guilty man go free than an innocent man be wrongly killed. Also, why would this be very unlikely? Schizophrenia affects roughly one percent of the population. Not all of them are paranoid schizophrenics, but I'd argue all forms of schizophrenia could lead to running from police. Many schizophrenics are also more likely to be considered 'a suspect' by police officers, due to exhibiting certain strange tendencies, especially when off medications.

It is unlikely because:

a) Insane people generally do not commit crimes and remain within the population.

b) Most insane people are in lunatic asylums.

c) The probability of having a mad man being off his medicine away from the asylum and coincidentally committing a crime is extremely low. Within a day his someone would report his strange behavior.

d) A mad man would find it very difficult to commit the crime since his thoughts are not coherent. Most of them are mostly harmless.

e) A mad man would not get very far running from the police. They would most likely already know about his madness beforehand and know how to deal with him.