USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
That was't what I asked you.
THIS must end in America!
- Thread starter Bfgrn
- Start date
That was't what I asked you.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
but I told you what it would be anyway. Him screaming in to his radio for assistance.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
But you forgot the first part of it, like what were you doing, what did he say to you; just before you told him to kiss your ass??
SmarterthanYou
rebel
ok. i'll simply put myself in the same place as the guy in the posted video and him telling me to zip up my coat. followed by me saying no, then him saying 'I said zip it up now', then me saying 'kiss my ass'.
that good enough?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
So now, you have PROOF that that's what the Officer told him to do!!
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you didn't ask me that. you asked me what the REST of the conversation would be. the rest i'm just speculating on. You didn't ask me the BEFORE of the conversation, and again it's irrelevant. I do not have any mandate to follow an unlawful order.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
You ASSUMED that the Officer told the guy to zip up his coat, therefore your entire opinion is based on a LACK OF FACTS.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
when the accused police officer refuses to state his side of it, other than to say he stands by his actions, what else is left to do but speculate?
Good Luck
New member
It is not irrelevant.
For instance, the cop came up on you pissing into the gutter. He tells you to zip up. You tell him to kiss your ass. He says fine, if you want it that way, you're under arrest for indecent exposure and/or creating a public nuisance. You resist in several ways, including the use potential (but unsuccessful) lethal force, and in the process he beats you senseless and cuffs you.
See, the lead in circumstances DO make a difference. In my little drama, there was a legitimate purpose in the original approach, the situation was escalated by your own actions and the response was appropriate to what you did at each step of the altercation.
What we do not know from the available video is the circumstances that led to the LEO approaching the suspect in the first place. Without those very necessary details, there is no way to tell for certain if what was shown in the video was a proper reaction to an escalated situation, or whether it was some overbearing fascist with a badge feeling his oats. (Or a bit of both...)
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, I am sorry, you do not have the right to resist arrest. There is a legal process for wrongful arrest, and you have the right to prosecute that, but you do not have the right to resist arrest, and if you do, the police have the right to use necessary force. That is what appears to have happened here.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
What's left is to shut your punk mouth and allow our legal process to work. Stop SPECULATING on this cop's guilt or the innocence of the suspect, and allow a FUCKING JURY to hear the case and consider all the evidence and make an objective determination.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
So you want the Police Officer to state his case NOW, when you know that this isn't going to happen until all the legal aspects are over.
COME ON, YOU CAN DO BETTER THEN THAT
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Does anyone besides me see the absurdity and ignorance behind this statement? Where in the hell does someone get the bird-brained idea that we have a "right" to resist arrest?
My uncle was a bail bondsman for 35 years, and he told me... in all his 35 years, he never once bailed someone out of jail who felt they deserved to be arrested! Generally speaking, that is the case. The arrested person usually DOESN'T feel an arrest is warranted. If we had some magical "right" to refuse arrest, how many arrests do you think there would be in America? I doubt very many!
You simply do NOT have the right to refuse arrest by law enforcement authorities. In fact, it is a CRIME to resist arrest, and people are charged with this every day. What I think he may be confusing is, an officer's request for you to do something illegal. You do have the right to refuse to commit an illegal act by the order of a police officer. That's a completely different ball of wax.
I only hope this idiot is never actually placed under arrest, because I think he's in for a very rude awakening. You have the right to remain silent, you have the right to an attorney, you have the right to due process, but you damn sure don't have the right to refuse arrest. If you don't believe me, try it next time an officer places you under arrest, and see what happens!
Again, watching this video, I am looking at the suspects hands... at no time, are his hands where they should be, or where a trained police officer would have them. When he is first approached, the officer appears to attempt to get him to put his hands on the hood, so he can frisk him for weapons, needles, etc... but the guy bows up, you can clearly see that in the video, he is resisting the officer's attempt to frisk him, and so the officer takes him to the ground. At that point, I don't need the audio to know precisely what the officer instructed... "Put your hands above your head!" ...Clearly in the video, the suspects hands are NOT above his head, and he appears to be trying to get back up, when the officer pulls his baton and strikes him in the legs. At no point I can see, does the suspect comply with what the officer would have been telling him at that point, he continues to resist arrest.
But this is why I said all along, the case needs to be heard by a JURY, not tried by people watching a video clip! I don't know what went down, and no one else does by watching that! We have a bunch of emotive pinheads, reacting to what they perceive as "police brutality" but we don't know or comprehend the first thing about what was happening at the time, or the circumstances of what may have precipitated police action to begin with. The video is inconclusive in that regard, and a lot depends on that.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Is there something wrong with your reading comprehension? I said UNLAWFUL ARREST!!!!!
The United States Supreme Court would like to disagree with you.
yeah, let me show you what happens.
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. If 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.
Do you get it now?
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, I really don't get it, moron... WHAT is an "Unlawful Arrest?"
You posted a few vague snippets from the law, which seem to confirm your idiotic notion that people have the "right" to resist arrest, and that is NOT the fucking case! Not by a long shot! You failed to post the part which DEFINES what an "unlawful arrest" might be, and since you qualified your idiotic remark with that, it's fairly important. So why don't you clarify that for us, please?
My guess is, this cat in the video DOES NOT meet that criteria.
You posted a few vague snippets from the law, which seem to confirm your idiotic notion that people have the "right" to resist arrest, and that is NOT the fucking case! Not by a long shot! You failed to post the part which DEFINES what an "unlawful arrest" might be, and since you qualified your idiotic remark with that, it's fairly important. So why don't you clarify that for us, please?
My guess is, this cat in the video DOES NOT meet that criteria.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
Shut up, you ignorant theocratic dumbo-head.
Bfgrn
New member
OK... let me ask you a question...
There was a video played over and over by ALL the networks last year. It was a tiny "snippet" of a sermon Reverend Jeremiah Wright gave right after September 11, 2001... In the "snippet" he says: "America's chickens are coming home to roost"...
Did you make any judgment about Wright from that "snippet"...did you ever listen to his whole sermon that day? Did you know it was a great sermon that every American should have heard after we were attacked on 911... he called for self examination, as individuals and as a nation...and using Scripture, he warned about turning hatred for the guilty individuals that attacked us into blind hatred for the innocent (all Muslims)...
NOW, America has the blood of thousands of innocent men, women and children on our hands...We murdered human beings that "looked" close enough to the individuals that attacked us...but they were completely innocent victims...
Bfgrn
New member
AND...there is a legal process for placing someone under arrest... the officer's job is to cuff, transport and turn the suspect over for process..his job is NOT to be judge, jury and executioner...
"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners."
Camus
SmarterthanYou
rebel
an unlawful arrest would be one that includes an officer attempting to arrest someone that committed no crime, for example, the open carrying of a handgun in an open carry state is not a crime, but some idiotic cop decides to call it disorderly conduct and perform an unlawful arrest, I would have the right to resist.
In the incident mentioned in the OP, if the video is accurate, the immediate use of excessive force can be construed as an assault and battery with excessive force. he'd have every right to resist that for fear of bodily injury.
