no right to resist being raped by a cop?

Eye said:
dude..see post 21...legion has done the same exact thing and same wording before

it is odd for a new poster to hound someone like that for a source
Click to expand...

Yeah dude, but nothing else matches. He asked for a source, it was given, the issue is now settled.

Now if we can get back to the actual OP, I'm pretty sure the MSSC will do the right thing is this matter. I certainly hope so.
 
It amazes me the extent of abuse state's now believe that we must endure in the exercise of the police powers. The thing that floors me is so many people believe that the State is more likely to protect their rights. Historically that has never been true. It has been the Federal courts which have strengthened the people's rights against unreasonable search and seizure. It is the Federal Courts that enforced the 14th amendment against states denying citizens their rights. It was the Federal government that strengthened our first amendment rights. It has almost without exception been states that have sought to restrict our freedoms in the name of their police powers.
 
Emperor Septimius Severus said:
Yeah dude, but nothing else matches. He asked for a source, it was given, the issue is now settled.

Now if we can get back to the actual OP, I'm pretty sure the MSSC will do the right thing is this matter. I certainly hope so.
Click to expand...

dude...it is already settled it, i told WHY i thought it and you kept going making it a bigger issue. you guys have been wrong in the past....i fail to see why you are making this a big deal.
 
Socrtease said:
It amazes me the extent of abuse state's now believe that we must endure in the exercise of the police powers. The thing that floors me is so many people believe that the State is more likely to protect their rights. Historically that has never been true. It has been the Federal courts which have strengthened the people's rights against unreasonable search and seizure. It is the Federal Courts that enforced the 14th amendment against states denying citizens their rights. It was the Federal government that strengthened our first amendment rights. It has almost without exception been states that have sought to restrict our freedoms in the name of their police powers.
Click to expand...

You're more informed on this matter than I, but from what I've seen both federal and state courts are about limiting freedoms. Perhaps not as much so lately (odd given the vast increase in executive authority).
 
It is true, that with the events of 9-11 all courts are more determined to allow the police to exercise greater and greater violations of our rights. Better safe than free and all that. Again, I am grateful to live in a state that has affirmatively stated I have a right to resist illegal arrest, using even deadly force if that is what the police officer is using illegally. As an aside, by requiring people to allow the police to illegally search and detain you, they give the offending officer a chance to cover his tracks by manufacturing evidence of your "wrong doing".
 
Emperor Septimius Severus said:
Yeah dude, but nothing else matches. He asked for a source, it was given, the issue is now settled.

Now if we can get back to the actual OP, I'm pretty sure the MSSC will do the right thing is this matter. I certainly hope so.
Click to expand...

I would like to think so as well, however, having followed this story for over a year now, I can tell you how this new statute came about.

In 1999, the Michigan court of appeals was forced to recognize that the statute 'explicitly' recognized the individual right to use such reasonable force as is necessary to prevent an illegal attachment and to resist an illegal arrest. In the dicta of that ruling though, the court practically begged the legislature to change the law:

"We share the concerns of other jurisdictions that the right to resist an illegal arrest is an outmoded and dangerous doctrine, and we urge our Supreme Court to reconsider this doctrine at the first available opportunity.... [W]e see no benefit to continuing the right to resist an otherwise peaceful arrest made by a law enforcement officer, merely because the arrestee believes the arrest is illegal. Given modern procedural safeguards for criminal defendants, the `right' only preserves the possibility that harm will come to the arresting officer or the defendant."

So, the state legislature modified the relevant section of the state code by removing the clause that recognizes the common law right to prevent an unlawful arrest by a police officer.

then, in a 2004 case of people v. Ventura, dealing with the right to resist an unlawful arrest, that same michigan court of appeals, which had badgered the state legislature to modify the SDA, cited that modification as a positive statement of legislative intent. In a transcendently cynical passage, the court wrote that "it is not within our province to disturb our Legislature's obvious affirmative choice to modify the traditional common-law rule that a person may resist an unlawful arrest."

So, despite the fact that there are constitutions out there that explicitly recognize certain rights held by the people, collusion between the courts and the legislature can simply rewrite the constitutional definitions of such things as if they never existed.
 
Socrtease said:
It amazes me the extent of abuse state's now believe that we must endure in the exercise of the police powers. The thing that floors me is so many people believe that the State is more likely to protect their rights. Historically that has never been true. It has been the Federal courts which have strengthened the people's rights against unreasonable search and seizure. It is the Federal Courts that enforced the 14th amendment against states denying citizens their rights. It was the Federal government that strengthened our first amendment rights. It has almost without exception been states that have sought to restrict our freedoms in the name of their police powers.
Click to expand...
until recently that is. kentucky v. king comes to mind.
 
Eye said:
i'm curious as to your dislike of that decision.
Click to expand...

from Alitos opinion:

Officer Steven Cobb, one of the uniformed officers who approached the door, testified that the officers banged on the left apartment door "as loud as [they] could" and announced, "`This is the police'" or "`Police, police, police.'" Id., at 22-23. Cobb said that "[a]s soon as [the officers] started banging on the door," they "could hear people inside moving," and "t sounded as [though] things were being moved inside the apartment." Id., at 24. These noises, Cobb testified, led the officers to believe that drug-related evidence was about to be destroyed.

simple movement inside after knocking on the door now creates exigent circumstances to enter without a warrant. combine that with qualified immunity and you might as well delete the 4th Amendment from the bill of rights.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
from Alitos opinion:

Officer Steven Cobb, one of the uniformed officers who approached the door, testified that the officers banged on the left apartment door "as loud as [they] could" and announced, "`This is the police'" or "`Police, police, police.'" Id., at 22-23. Cobb said that "[a]s soon as [the officers] started banging on the door," they "could hear people inside moving," and "t sounded as [though] things were being moved inside the apartment." Id., at 24. These noises, Cobb testified, led the officers to believe that drug-related evidence was about to be destroyed.

simple movement inside after knocking on the door now creates exigent circumstances to enter without a warrant. combine that with qualified immunity and you might as well delete the 4th Amendment from the bill of rights.
Click to expand...


i read it differently than you.
 
Emperor Trajan said:
If they were announcing themselves already, didn't they have a warrant to enter the apartment to begin with?
Click to expand...
If you're referring to the King case, no they did not have a warrant. It involved the pursuit of a subject outside an apartment complex. when they got to an alcove where they deemed the suspect to have gone, there were 4 apartment doors, no suspect in sight. So they randomly picked a door because they heard people talking behind it and knocked loudly while announcing themselves.
 
Emperor Trajan said:
If they were announcing themselves already, didn't they have a warrant to enter the apartment to begin with?
Click to expand...

There are two kinds of warrents.
1. a no knock warrent
and
2. a knock warrent.

The knock warrent means they must announce themselves and give time for the occupants to open the door, time is subjective; the no knock warrent means they can enter the premises without a prior announcment.
 
Eye said:
i read it differently than you.
Click to expand...

just to re-iterate that your reading is markedly different from some of the courts now using it.

US v. Aguirre, 2011 in the 5th circuit. "Shuffling, scuffling sound inside the trailer” when police knocked was exigent circumstance for entry to prevent desctruction of evidence."
 
SmarterThanYou said:
from Alitos opinion:

Officer Steven Cobb, one of the uniformed officers who approached the door, testified that the officers banged on the left apartment door "as loud as [they] could" and announced, "`This is the police'" or "`Police, police, police.'" Id., at 22-23. Cobb said that "[a]s soon as [the officers] started banging on the door," they "could hear people inside moving," and "t sounded as [though] things were being moved inside the apartment." Id., at 24. These noises, Cobb testified, led the officers to believe that drug-related evidence was about to be destroyed.

simple movement inside after knocking on the door now creates exigent circumstances to enter without a warrant. combine that with qualified immunity and you might as well delete the 4th Amendment from the bill of rights.
Click to expand...


the drug laws have and are undermining personal freedom and liberty

i wonder if anyone has noted just how many arrests, searches and seizures occur because drugs are suspected or found
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top