Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Unlawful Arrest


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Unlawful Arrest Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Unlawful Arrest - 8/2/2015 12:58:56 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline 		Since so many posting here appear to believe that any order given by a law enforcement officer stands as the supreme law it is not true. In fact its so far from true you can legally waste an officer operating outside his jurisdiction under certain circumstances.


“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).

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


there is another side to judge dredd law enforcement we see in the us today.



_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Unlawful Arrest - 8/2/2015 1:30:43 PM   
Kaliko


Posts: 3381
Joined: 9/25/2010
Status: offline 		How is one to know, though, if it's an unlawful arrest if it's not so blatantly obvious that it is? Regardless of a person's innocence, the warrant could still be perfectly legitimate. Or...it could not be. How is a person to know if the warrant is defective, or issued without an affidavit, at the time of arrest? Seems like an awfully big risk to take, freeing oneself from the arrest and killing the officer with the hopes that the warrant is illegal, no? For that matter (and I ask this knowing nothing about the warrant and arrest procedure), would the arresting officer even know whether the warrant is defective?

These are just the questions that struck me as I read this.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Unlawful Arrest - 8/2/2015 3:03:42 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline 		Dont ever become a lawyer. You would suck at it!

Probably get good people jailed or killed.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Since so many posting here appear to believe that any order given by a law enforcement officer stands as the supreme law it is not true. In fact its so far from true you can legally waste an officer operating outside his jurisdiction under certain circumstances.


Yeah, use this behavior the next time the officer is having a bad day. Tell us from jail how well it worked for you, ok?

If the police officer is well trained, tested and monitored, the likelihood of problems or violations of the law diminish quite rapidly. Now if we held citizens to that same standard....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
“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.”


How do you determine an unlawful order? Because its your word verse the police officer's in a court room. Most people tend to side with the police rather than the other guy in court rooms across the nation. Particularly if the film shows the person being an asshole towards a very patient police officer.

There are plenty of videos of 'sovereign citizens' behaving like total assholes and then stating "The police officer assaulted me without provocation". Yes, there are videos of police officers getting out of line. Funny that it requires good amounts of training, education, and monitoring to accomplish a professional police officer. Money that requires tax payer support to accomplish. That is what your taxes pay! On one hand you demand good, professional police officers, but on the other hand, demand not a penny be spent. Sorry, cant have it both ways.

If an officer is being unlawfully, interrupt it if you can. If you can not, film it. Then either take it to the police, the media, or the FBI. Or all three. In the 'heat of the moment' people let their emotions override their better judgement. Simply stopping a police officer from starting to beat someone, forcing them to think rather than lash out; could prevent something worst.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
“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.


How do you know the warrant is defective or not issued without an affidavit there Sherlock?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
“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.


So a person is allowed to be 'Judge and Jury' and preside over another's murder without penalty.....

Its one thing to be in your house and maybe 'place of business'. Its another to be on a street or a park. Because then its 'your word verse the corpse'. After all, how do we know the assault wasn't the other way around? We have a person claiming he killed a police officer in self defense. Yeah, I'd side with the police officer unless that guy had some REALLY good evidence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
“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.


After every instance in which the police officer deals with an issue from the public, they have to make a report. In situations that demand much more, the police officer must give more information. In the case in which the officer may have being behaving unlawfully, they are allowed a lawyer. You make it sound like nothing happens after a bad situation takes place involving the police and the public. An you can not be any further from the truth and fact here!

When the public expresses that a situation did not go according to law, or the standards of law people believe are active; it does requirement the government to step in and check everything out. This involves an investigation. Unfortunately for our impatient society, it does take time to go over all the facts and check for evidence.

That you hate government and the police, is....NOT....enough proof in any given situation of wrong doing on the part of the police, RealOne. If they perform unprofessional and/or illegally, its up to.....YOU.....to prove their guilt. Most likely in a court room. Most people do not have access to the caliber of lawyers that police typically have in their court.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
“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).


And what happens when some moron resists, violently with the perception of an illegal arrest?

Their next of kin are notified of the funeral....

If a police officer is arresting you in a calm and just manner, go with the flow. Becoming belligerent, toxic, or hostile, will only racket up the possible effects. Increases the likelihood the police officer makes a mistake. You want them making mistakes during a dangerous situation? Since there are plenty of moments this has happened and ended badly for both the ones being arrested and bystanders.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
“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).


That would assume knowledge of the law. Most people, are not Mattlock. There are plenty of people that think they know what the laws are or their rights; and end up creating more problems for themselves.

You pull a gun on an officer; he's allowed to do the same. You aim at him, he's allowed to shoot you dead!

There is passively resisting an arrest, and being a moronic asshole when being arrested. That you can't tell the difference between the two is your problem, not ours!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
“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).


You come to the aid of your friend whom the....ARMED....officer is arresting and see what happens. We'll tell your next of kin that you were an idiot....

Again, there is more than one way to resist an arrest without creating a more explosive event from taking place. By you taking an active role in protecting your friend from that 'evil dog of a police officer', you are making things worst, not better, for your friend. Most likely, both of you will be going to jail as the officer's buddies step in and club you like a baby seal!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm


I find your website amusing. It 'claims' it knows constitutional law and how to 'fight the system'. Yeah, take its 'suggestions' RealOne. Tell us from jail how effective they were....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
there is another side to judge dredd law enforcement we see in the us today.


The movies paint Judge Dredd in very mild colors compared to the comics. Its like the TMNT on the big screen verse the comics that started things. One is 'playing with fake weapons' the other is 'fucking violence with a side of destruction'. But they are both pieces of fiction and not based even remotely on reality. Like the grand majority of your arguments so far....


(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Unlawful Arrest - 8/2/2015 3:20:57 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Since so many posting here appear to believe that any order given by a law enforcement officer stands as the supreme law it is not true. In fact its so far from true you can legally waste an officer operating outside his jurisdiction under certain circumstances.


“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).

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


there is another side to judge dredd law enforcement we see in the us today.



Co-operate, then sue.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Unlawful Arrest - 8/2/2015 3:24:51 PM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Since so many posting here appear to believe that any order given by a law enforcement officer stands as the supreme law it is not true. In fact its so far from true you can legally waste an officer operating outside his jurisdiction under certain circumstances.


“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).

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


there is another side to judge dredd law enforcement we see in the us today.



Co-operate, then sue.


Wasn't the whole fucking point of the 2nd amendment that you shouldn't have to cooperate.

Fuck me, make your mind up. You bitch about the 2nd then drop your pants the second the state or one of its officials tells you to.

[Ed to fix the typo I spotted]



< Message edited by crazyml -- 8/2/2015 3:25:40 PM >

_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Unlawful Arrest - 8/2/2015 3:34:10 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Since so many posting here appear to believe that any order given by a law enforcement officer stands as the supreme law it is not true. In fact its so far from true you can legally waste an officer operating outside his jurisdiction under certain circumstances.


“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).

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


there is another side to judge dredd law enforcement we see in the us today.



Co-operate, then sue.


Wasn't the whole fucking point of the 2nd amendment that you shouldn't have to cooperate.

Fuck me, make your mind up. You bitch about the 2nd then drop your pants the second the state or one of its officials tells you to.


< Message edited by BamaD -- 8/2/2015 4:11:57 PM >

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to crazyml)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Unlawful Arrest - 8/2/2015 3:44:26 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline 		I hope that snide remark wasnt to impress us that you ever successfully process a case?

A lawful order has the signature of the magistrate, the charges, and some kind of an official government seal.

Joe acting like an asshole isnt against the law.

Are you talking about the same professional police officers that are blasting away at unarmed kids and getting away with it?

Taxpayers joe? for real?

quote:

Jeff Smith, a New School professor and former Missouri state senator, had a sensational op-ed in this weekend’s New York Times that dived into the economic forces that have helped shape the strife in Ferguson. His big point is that the local police have a strong financial incentive to arrest, ticket, and otherwise harass the city’s black residents for minor offenses, because that’s how the department funds its budget.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/08/18/ferguson_police_department_the_economic_incentives_that_make_cops_harass.html



Prisons are BIG business joe, BIG money in putting people in jail in america! I hope crime goes sky high so I am make a lot on my investment!

Taxpayers? For real joe?


Traded on the Nasdaq:

quote:


Corrections Corporation of America Stock Quote

Today's High /Low $ 35.44 / $ 34.91

Company Description (as filed with the SEC)

We are the nation's largest owner of privatized correctional and detention facilities and one of the largest prison operators in the United States. As of December 31, 2014, we owned or controlled 52 correctional and detention facilities and managed an additional 12 facilities owned by our government partners, with a total design capacity of approximately 84,500 beds in 19 states and the District of Columbia. We are a Real Estate Investment Trust, or REIT, specializing in owning, operating, and managing prisons and other correctional facilities and providing residential, community re-entry, and prisoner transportation services for governmental agencies. In addition to providing fundamental residential services, our facilities offer a variety of rehabilitation and educational programs, including basic education, faith-based services, life skills and employment training, and substance abuse treatment.
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/cxw



I dont know about anyone else but I would call that a conflict in interest when punishment is big business. Thats all ok with you joe?


Joe sovereign citizens like sandra bland know the law, and people who know the law tend not to have patience for judge dredd asshelmets.

But joe an officer in another thread assaulted a 15 year old black gal for filming him, is it legal for an officer of the law to assault someone for legally sanctioned activity?

The officer would present the paperwork to you, if it was fake and the US was anything more than thugs the officer or someone would be prosecuted for fraud.

If it were faked and you killed an officer trying to arrest you how could anyone hold you wrongfully liable? They cant.

But its not me who is furhter from the truth since I merely quoted a website (a quite reputable one I might add) who quoted applicable court cases.

if you dispute the findings of the courts in: Jones v. State, Beaverts v. State, and Skidmore v. State, by all means post your objections and lets take a closer look and see if you have a real argument or merely more rhetoric.




That you hate government and the police

Nah joe, I dont hate government what so ever. I hate criminals in whatever form they may take. Violating people due process rights or corrupt judges undermining rights reserved to ourselves are criminals. Arent they? They destroy our rights joe, death by a thousand tiny cuts.


But joe, again, being a moronic asshole is not a crime.

Which way is that joe? They even beat the hell out of eddie craig, and X-sheriff for what they painted as resisting arrest.

Yes joe, thats why many people today know more about the law than the police arresting them. Think about it joe you have real life sheriffs that go up against these road nazis.

Joe my arguments are backed by court cases, and yours?










< Message edited by Real0ne -- 8/2/2015 3:46:00 PM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Unlawful Arrest - 8/2/2015 4:34:13 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Co-operate, then sue.


Exactly!

If you follow things in 'good faith' it makes your lawyer's task much easier when before the court. Many a solid court case was undone by a technicality. Some process was not followed, or someone did something out of the normal chain of events.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Unlawful Arrest - 8/2/2015 4:44:46 PM   
MichaelAgaAymes


Posts: 3
Joined: 9/29/2011
Status: offline 		A quick suggestion - I won't bore people with a full here and now.

A rule, regulation, act, statute, decision or precedent only applies to those who consent to its application. If that consent is unfairly obtained it is not given. The assumption that a citizen consents to the rules is made unfairly as no option to register non-consent is provided without penalty. Therefore no police officer, judicial officer or legislature has any lawful power over anyone not-consenting of their own free will and in full and complete understanding of what they are asked to consent to. All law is therefore unlawful.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Unlawful Arrest - 8/2/2015 5:04:50 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline 		yeh I posted the pecking order in the free inhabitant thread but based on a few recent posts I doubt the people who needed to see it have reviewed it.



Supreme court 1795:

Vanhorne v. Dorrance

The Constitution is the work or will of the People themselves, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity.

Law is the work or will of the Legislature in their derivative and subordinate capacity.

The one is the work of the Creator, and the other of the Creature.



_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to MichaelAgaAymes)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Unlawful Arrest - 8/2/2015 6:06:16 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.


RealOne can't you see where this type of crap could be inciting people to kill? Just about every post of yours is inflammatory and anti authority often for no good reason. There is a chance that your kind of rhetoric could have been a direct cause of the actions of the police murder in Memphis. In many of the recent confrontations between protesters and authorities often misinformation by people like you, speculating without facts, has caused injury and destruction.

Social media is here to stay and is having a huge influence over the actions of the uninformed. This means you have a responsibility to think before you post.

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Unlawful Arrest - 8/2/2015 6:21:52 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
I hope that snide remark wasnt to impress us that you ever successfully process a case?


If I was a lawyer, I would lay waste to your arguments with an even finer blade of legal dialogue usage.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
A lawful order has the signature of the magistrate, the charges, and some kind of an official government seal.


A lawful order is one that is defined in a court room. When the police hand you a warrant for your arrest or to search your property, it is considered a lawful order from the judge. Course after 9/11, some things in this process did change to handle the more complex legal landscape law enforcement finds themselves within now.

If you are handed a warrant it explains the terms of the warrant, the official data of the court and judge, and bears not just any kind of official seal, but the one for the jurisdiction. Even if you are being arrested, you are allowed to see and review the document.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Joe acting like an asshole isnt against the law.


Depends on the situation. Be an asshole while the police officer has you pulled over for a broken tail light. Where as he might have given you a warning, now you get a $40 charge because your being an asshole.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Are you talking about the same professional police officers that are blasting away at unarmed kids and getting away with it?


That would be like me assuming all conservatives are just terrorists, because two conservatives destroyed the Alfred P. Murray Building in Oklahoma City, OK, 4/19/95. Your trying to state that the behaviors of a tiny percentage of police officers, reflects on the whole; even in different states. When some officer is found to have been "...blasting away at unarmed kids...."; they are often put on trial. In that court trial, if they "...getting away with it." implies the prosecution failed to meet the requirement to the jury that the person on trial was guilty rather than innocent. The prosecution has to mount a REALLY good argument, because the integrity of the law enforcement and judicial systems are at stake. The people they get for a jury would not likely have any information about the whole issue. Yeah, believe it or not, but the justice system found 12 people in California that didn't know who O.J. Simpson was back in the 90's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Taxpayers joe? for real?

quote:

(per the article being quoted by RealOne)
Jeff Smith, a New School professor and former Missouri state senator, had a sensational op-ed in this weekend’s New York Times that dived into the economic forces that have helped shape the strife in Ferguson. His big point is that the local police have a strong financial incentive to arrest, ticket, and otherwise harass the city’s black residents for minor offenses, because that’s how the department funds its budget.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/08/18/ferguson_police_department_the_economic_incentives_that_make_cops_harass.html


That this was all happening without all the 'checks and balances' paying attention should be the real issue here. That the local government didn't know how it was acquiring its funding? Doesn't sound like anyone I would like to see re-hired to the job. Most locations (if not all) have some sort of 'watchdog' group keeping tabs on 'everything in government'. And we are not talking the 'failure of organizations' you like to promote either. We are talking about ones that have some integrity and study on the subject. Where were they on this matter? Finally we have the common citizens. Its up to the citizens to keep tabs on their government. Problem here, is that most Americans have thrown up their hands and given up on our system of government? The last election (2014), only 36.6% of the voting population cast a ballot. That was the lost in nearly 70 years!

A very cautionary tale to all Americans. Unfortunately after the next mass shooting in a few weeks, no one will remember me telling you any of this.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Prisons are BIG business joe, BIG money in putting people in jail in america! I hope crime goes sky high so I am make a lot on my investment!


An why did they become big business in the first place? The GOP wanted to privatize all sorts of government institutions. One of them was the prison system. Now those prisons are run either partially or wholly by a company/corporation that has....EVERYTHING....to gain by keeping people locked up. Would they, their supporters, employees, or the families of those employees have a 'conflict of interest' when deciding how we handle penalties within a given law?

But if your investing in prisons, I would advise a good bond fund. Heck, if you have money to invest, go stocks on the NYSE! You'll make the kind of killing you can't be arrested for! Jut dont do any insider trading, ok?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Corrections Corporation of America Stock Quote

I dont know about anyone else but I would call that a conflict in interest when punishment is big business. Thats all ok with you joe?


Again, why are you blaming the liberals here? Its the conservatives that allowed Republicans to get into office and allow this sort of 'crappy' stuff into existence. Go blame them (conservatives and the Republicans)! You want to see something that will REALLY get your blood boiling, try this: search for "Corrections Corporation of America" and 'Conflict of interest".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Joe, sovereign citizens like sandra bland know the law, and people who know the law tend not to have patience for judge dredd asshelmets.


No, sovereign citizens are DANGEROUS individuals. Often they are the ones creating the problems we see on videos. If sovereign citizens knew the law correctly, they would have two components not often found in such individuals: being mature adults, and understanding of humanity. These people try word games to confuse the officer (often in vain) that the officer has no jurisdiction over them. They are not trustworthy given their habit of lying about their taxes and acquisition of firearms (and a whole host of other illegal actions). To put it bluntly (and according to the FBI) they are domestic terrorists. Are you really sure you want to be defending these people?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
But joe an officer in another thread assaulted a 15 year old black gal for filming him, is it legal for an officer of the law to assault someone for legally sanctioned activity?


Which thread? there are quite a large number of threads on this forum right now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
The officer would present the paperwork to you, if it was fake and the US was anything more than thugs the officer or someone would be prosecuted for fraud.


You STILL have not explained HOW you know paperwork is fake. Your argument that 'the whole US Government is corrupted and made up of thugs with guns' is not the sort of defense your lawyer will advise you to make in a trial. Its the kind of argument that gets you some 'quality time' in 'the big house'.

You have to prove the paperwork is fake. You can declare the paperwork is fake to your heart's content. Unfortunately, without actual evidence, its just your bullshit against the state document and the people that signed off on it. You would lose the argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
If it were faked and you killed an officer trying to arrest you how could anyone hold you wrongfully liable? They cant.


Regardless if the document is fake or not, you killed a police officer! What do you think your chances are in the court case being labelled as a COP KILLER by the prosecution? Unless you have some FUCKING AMAZING evidence, 999,999/1,000,000 chances your going to jail for 40+ years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
But its not me who is furhter from the truth since I merely quoted a website (a quite reputable one I might add) who quoted applicable court cases.


Oh my gosh, you quoted a website. It must be true, because you quoted it, right? PRAISE JESUS!

That website is not really credible. You want credibility with information: cnn.com, npr.com, www.law.cornell.edu/constitution. Your site is not credible. To be a credible source of information requires the need to explain the 'who' and 'how' the information is acquired. That it be free (to a fair degree) of political agendas or viewpoints. That if a mistake is made, they will state it, apologize and give the correct information. They acknowledge that while they will try their best to 'vet' information, they are not perfect. Your site fails on every account. Therefore, its not credible!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
if you dispute the findings of the courts in: Jones v. State, Beaverts v. State, and Skidmore v. State, by all means post your objections and lets take a closer look and see if you have a real argument or merely more rhetoric.


Your original post looked like it was trying to weave all the legal cases together to form a legal argument out of context that allows a person to kill a police officer simply by stating some irrelevant dispute as justification to not being prosecuted as a cop killer. Why should I post my viewpoints on these two particular cases? You havent, why should I?

When I talk about Heller vs DC, I explain the case from a politically neutral stand point. Then I explain my view on the court case and its judgement. What your doing in these cases is not that. Your trying to piece together separate cases that dealt with separate issues of separate laws, to form an allowance that justifies the murdering of legal law enforcement representatives. In some cases you suggest you can do this if the action of the police officer is illegal or the warrant is illegal. Yet, fail to give evidence or explanation on how one would know ahead of time the police officer's action and/or the warrant is false/illegal. Even if you could, resisting arrest by a police officer whom was doing something illegal, could land you in legal jeapardity as well. Just because the officer or the warrant was unlawful does not give you permission to behave/act illegally as well!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
That you hate government and the police

Nah joe, I dont hate government what so ever. I hate criminals in whatever form they may take. Violating people due process rights or corrupt judges undermining rights reserved to ourselves are criminals. Arent they? They destroy our rights joe, death by a thousand tiny cuts.


If this was true, then you would be all 'up in arms' over some Republicans in Congress to hold the nation 'over a barrel' on the budget to remove funding for Planned Parenthood. This is the issue I mentioned on another thread. In which Republicans and conservatives flatly ignored one set of videos (the facts) to push the idea through other videos (the conspiracy) that PP is selling human body parts illegally. Where is all the outrage over these people doing all this again?

I could drop pin in that room and hear from a 100 miles away! Do I see you making any posts or threads about this issue? Of course not. That's why I call your 'argument' here bullshit!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
But joe, again, being a moronic asshole is not a crime.


Depends on the circumstance. By itself most likely will not get you in direct legal trouble. Indirectly.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Which way is that joe? They even beat the hell out of eddie craig, and X-sheriff for what they painted as resisting arrest.


What are you talking about?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Yes joe, thats why many people today know more about the law than the police arresting them. Think about it joe you have real life sheriffs that go up against these road nazis.


No, many more people....THINK....they know the law. Belief in knowledge of the law and knowledge of the law, are two very different concepts in reality. If people understood the law, why were they breaking it in the first place?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Joe my arguments are backed by court cases, and yours?


Really? The courts of the United States of America contacted you and asked how you would decide on each case individually before they and the jury passed judgement? That's a pretty exceptional argument to make here. You got the pretty exceptional EVIDENCE to go with this argument?

My arguments are based on observation of legal code and laws. Of how people decided on said cases given the evidence and arguments presented in the cases. I'm not the only trying to justify murdering police officers by making up wild concepts from legal cases in which the ruling is taken....WAY THE FUCK....out of context!









(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Unlawful Arrest - 8/2/2015 6:38:01 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MichaelAgaAymes
A quick suggestion - I won't bore people with a full here and now.

A rule, regulation, act, statute, decision or precedent only applies to those who consent to its application. If that consent is unfairly obtained it is not given. The assumption that a citizen consents to the rules is made unfairly as no option to register non-consent is provided without penalty. Therefore no police officer, judicial officer or legislature has any lawful power over anyone not-consenting of their own free will and in full and complete understanding of what they are asked to consent to. All law is therefore unlawful.


So if I disagree with it, therefore the "....rule, regulation, act, statue, decision or precedent...." doesn't apply.....

Yeah, BULL and SHIT!

If you do not consent to a law, you can sue the government in a court of law under the 1st amendment. You better make sure you have a REALLY good argument when you do. Wasting the Court's time with mindless bullshit can get you fined and jailed.

If a police officer stops you on the street, and gives you a decent reason for the stop to check your ID; you....will...give them your ID. Or you'll have a 'free trip' to the police station for further 'chatting' with said police officer. That you as a citizen think you can ignore this as unfair is laughable! The officer's 'decent reason' would be something that allows for the 'probable cause' to trigger in the first place. An 'yeah' there are many court cases. And police officers are trained, tested, and retested on probable cause. Why go through the process of arresting a 'perp', the whole court system only to lose on a technicality? Therefore, it makes sense for them to understand the concept, doesnt it?

Finally, common citizens do not make laws. We have Law Makers that do that. Typically we call them the 'legislative' branch of our government. An how does one get to this branch? They are voted in by those whom are 18+ and registered to vote. Once there, they create these documents called 'bills' that are decide upon and voted into actual law. While you as the citizen can say you do not give your consent to the law to your 'hearts content', you are still obeying the law. Or you are paying the penalty.

If all law is unlawful, then you have no rights as a person, let alone a US Citizen. Since you have rights as a US Citizen (for this I'm assuming your a US Citizen), you have rights as a person. There are laws and they are lawful in nature. Therefore your argument here is null and void on the basis of reality, evidence, and logic.

(in reply to MichaelAgaAymes)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Unlawful Arrest - 8/2/2015 6:51:34 PM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline 		FR

What I see as a major problem here is that there seems to be a wide variance of opinion over what is a "lawful" vs. "unlawful" order from a police officer. Even the police who overstep their authority seem rather clueless about what they're allowed/not allowed to do. The citizen is left at the mercy of whatever the police officer says, even if the citizen is legally right and the officer is wrong.

Sure, the conventional wisdom is to cooperate with the police officer, then sue. But that may only resolve a one-time event; it doesn't solve the overall problem.

I mentioned this in another thread, but we should ask ourselves why there is this widespread societal confusion over what rights the citizens have in regards to their interactions with the police or other governmental officials. Most people have heard the Miranda rights on TV so often they could probably recite them in their sleep, yet why is there not enough information disseminated regarding what rights people have at a traffic stop? Should cops be required to read people their rights at every traffic stop?

Perhaps there can be a public education campaign to make it clear exactly what rights and responsibilities a citizen has on a traffic stop. Cops also need to be informed that they can't be out there playing games like they constantly do. They need to be told in no uncertain terms that they have to do everything by the book - or else. They should also not be insistent upon win-lose situations. They should always seek out win-win solutions for every situation.

The problem with cops is that they seem to have this delusional idea that they must assert their dominance and authority no matter what. That's always their top priority - even before whatever law enforcement function they're presuming to fulfill. That's why all this business about "following lawful orders," since any kind of defiance of that kind of authority must be dealt with in the harshest possible way. But that's more due to an ego problem and also caused by the state's insular indifference.

You wouldn't ordinarily see that from a small town sheriff, since he has to live side-by-side with the same people he has jurisdiction over. His attitude might be more one of give and take, looking for win-win situations and not looking to force everyone he meets into submission. He may only do that with outsiders, people who don't live in the town.

But that's also another problem, since a lot of police officers don't actually live in the jurisdiction in which they work. I know that's the case for a lot of police officers here in Tucson, many of whom live outside the city limits. So, perhaps there should be a rule requiring that police officers live within whatever jurisdiction or precinct they're working.





(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Unlawful Arrest - 8/2/2015 7:12:34 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

FR

What I see as a major problem here is that there seems to be a wide variance of opinion over what is a "lawful" vs. "unlawful" order from a police officer. Even the police who overstep their authority seem rather clueless about what they're allowed/not allowed to do. The citizen is left at the mercy of whatever the police officer says, even if the citizen is legally right and the officer is wrong.

Sure, the conventional wisdom is to cooperate with the police officer, then sue. But that may only resolve a one-time event; it doesn't solve the overall problem.

I mentioned this in another thread, but we should ask ourselves why there is this widespread societal confusion over what rights the citizens have in regards to their interactions with the police or other governmental officials. Most people have heard the Miranda rights on TV so often they could probably recite them in their sleep, yet why is there not enough information disseminated regarding what rights people have at a traffic stop? Should cops be required to read people their rights at every traffic stop?

Perhaps there can be a public education campaign to make it clear exactly what rights and responsibilities a citizen has on a traffic stop. Cops also need to be informed that they can't be out there playing games like they constantly do. They need to be told in no uncertain terms that they have to do everything by the book - or else. They should also not be insistent upon win-lose situations. They should always seek out win-win solutions for every situation.

The problem with cops is that they seem to have this delusional idea that they must assert their dominance and authority no matter what. That's always their top priority - even before whatever law enforcement function they're presuming to fulfill. That's why all this business about "following lawful orders," since any kind of defiance of that kind of authority must be dealt with in the harshest possible way. But that's more due to an ego problem and also caused by the state's insular indifference.

You wouldn't ordinarily see that from a small town sheriff, since he has to live side-by-side with the same people he has jurisdiction over. His attitude might be more one of give and take, looking for win-win situations and not looking to force everyone he meets into submission. He may only do that with outsiders, people who don't live in the town.

But that's also another problem, since a lot of police officers don't actually live in the jurisdiction in which they work. I know that's the case for a lot of police officers here in Tucson, many of whom live outside the city limits. So, perhaps there should be a rule requiring that police officers live within whatever jurisdiction or precinct they're working.






When you sue you hit not just the officers actions but whatever in his department/city that made him think his actions were justified.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Unlawful Arrest - 8/2/2015 7:42:37 PM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline 		Disobeying an order with the perception that it is not a lawful order is not something to be done casually. The discussion also reminds me of a concept that exists but is never talked about; jury nullification.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_nullification

Occasionally you see a jury vote to acquit not because they think the accused is innocent but in the belief that the law is not just or is being applied unjustly.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Unlawful Arrest - 8/2/2015 8:26:34 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Disobeying an order with the perception that it is not a lawful order is not something to be done casually. The discussion also reminds me of a concept that exists but is never talked about; jury nullification.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_nullification

Occasionally you see a jury vote to acquit not because they think the accused is innocent but in the belief that the law is not just or is being applied unjustly.



Its not talked about because its the 4th branch of government. Juries are never informed of their authority to acquit despite being endorsed by several supreme court justices. Instead judges box the jury in insisting they have to vote within parameters demanded by the judge. not true.

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Unlawful Arrest - 8/2/2015 8:59:36 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

If I was a lawyer, I would lay waste to your arguments with an even finer blade of legal dialogue usage.....

No, sovereign citizens are DANGEROUS individuals.

To put it bluntly (and according to the FBI) they are domestic terrorists. Are you really sure you want to be defending these people?

You STILL have not explained HOW you know paperwork is fake.

What do you think your chances are in the court case being labelled as a COP KILLER by the prosecution?

You want credibility with information: cnn.com, npr.com, www.law.cornell.edu/constitution.

In some cases you suggest you can do this if the action of the police officer is illegal or the warrant is illegal. Yet, fail to give evidence or explanation on how one would know ahead of time the police officer's action and/or the warrant is false/illegal.

Just because the officer or the warrant was unlawful does not give you permission to behave/act illegally as well!

No, many more people....THINK....they know the law.

My arguments are based on observation of legal code and laws. Of how people decided on said cases given the evidence and arguments presented in the cases. I'm not the only trying to justify murdering police officers by making up wild concepts from legal cases in which the ruling is taken....WAY THE FUCK....out of context!




Nope being a lawyer wouldnt help you much.

I suppose you could claim sovereign citizens are dangerous since they created the constitution.

Supreme court 1795:

Vanhorne v. Dorrance

The Constitution is the work or will of the People themselves, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity.

Law is the work or will of the Legislature in their derivative and subordinate capacity.

The one is the work of the Creator, and the other of the Creature.

yeh the king of England said that too.

correct. I explained what should be seen on the paperwork

I tend to agree to an extent that trials are conducted unde political labels to taint the facts.

Yes cnn fox, definitely the epitomy of credibility!

joe its explained in the cases

but joe if its legal to defend yourself against an officer actiing illegally how to that add up to your doing something illegal?

yes many people do think they know the law, none here ever heard of what I posted just look at the shock and dismay, yet these are court decisions.

Do you think the cited cases were decided any differently than the ones you claim are your cases though I was not able to find any posted by you?

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Unlawful Arrest - 8/2/2015 9:08:00 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.


RealOne can't you see where this type of crap could be inciting people to kill? Just about every post of yours is inflammatory and anti authority often for no good reason. There is a chance that your kind of rhetoric could have been a direct cause of the actions of the police murder in Memphis. In many of the recent confrontations between protesters and authorities often misinformation by people like you, speculating without facts, has caused injury and destruction.

Social media is here to stay and is having a huge influence over the actions of the uninformed. This means you have a responsibility to think before you post.

Butch



from reading many of your other posts, coming from you those conclusions are not surprising. good luck on that theory.

there is no speculation here these are decided court decisions in american courts. if you do not like the results I am sorry. I did not post them with any concern if anyone here would 'like' them.

I posted them to incite peoples brains to expand for greater knowledge maybe. That is crystal clear.

Again; I am not anti authority, I have a very high respect for honorable, legitimate authority.

Oh and btw, fyi, court decisions are not rhetoric, read your post, thats rhetoric.




_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Unlawful Arrest - 8/2/2015 9:09:30 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

When you sue you hit not just the officers actions but whatever in his department/city that made him think his actions were justified.



yep the sticky tar baby theory LOL

anyone who touched it in any way creating a liability is fair game.

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Unlawful Arrest Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125