Court: Being polite to cop made consent 'voluntary'

[wrightme]

What do you base that statement on? Your region of the country may differ from mine. I will be forced to deal with what I have, not what you have.

I can burn up every shred of bandwidth on this forum with YouTube encounters that went bad with police, from assault to murder.

Sure you can. Balance that against the actual number of crimes, and you have statistics. Without the other numbers, you simply have one side of it. IMHO, ONE such instance is too many. But, for further discussion, I refer you to the term "innumeracy." Many persons are afraid of flying because plane crashes make the news, while completely ignoring that the reality is that a person has a MUCH greater chance of dying in a car on the way to the airport than in a plane crash.


The view of "die in a plane crash" is a view based upon fear, and is not based in real world statistical analysis. The same is the case for a fear of "beat/shot/tazed" mistakenly by LE.
Present the raw statistics against the numbers of "victimized by crime" and you have a discussion.

 

[wrightme]

yep...cops shoots restrained unarmed man in back and gets two years. just think what one would get for shooting a restrained unarmed cop in the back.

According to the post before yours, was the intent to shoot a restrained unarmed man in the back?

 

[Coded-Dude]

intention has nothing to do with it.....

"my intention was to hurry up and pick my girlfriend up from work, not run over a child crossing the street"

Some of the best intentions in the world can have severe repercussions!

The man was in custody, being held face down by multiple officers. Was lethal force necessary? ABSOLUTELY NOT! (according to the cop who "meant" to grab his non-lethal taser because the alleged victim/"criminal" appeared to be "reaching for a gun")

There are too many holes to plug in this story. Bottom line; the cop messed up big time and should pay for his crimes. This is not justice.

 

[wrightme]

intention has nothing to do with it.....

Actually, yes it DOES have a lot to do with it.

"my intention was to hurry up and pick my girlfriend up from work, not run over a child crossing the street"

It changes it from a homicide to a murder. (or is it manslaughter to murder, or was it from "wrongful death" to murder. whichever it is, you SHOULD get the picture).

If the LE intended to shoot, that is MUCH different than intending to taze. Whether I believe that is the reality is not the point. Intent matters, whether you agree or not.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Sure you can. Balance that against the actual number of crimes, and you have statistics. Without the other numbers, you simply have one side of it. IMHO, ONE such instance is too many. But, for further discussion, I refer you to the term "innumeracy." Many persons are afraid of flying because plane crashes make the news, while completely ignoring that the reality is that a person has a MUCH greater chance of dying in a car on the way to the airport than in a plane crash.


The view of "die in a plane crash" is a view based upon fear, and is not based in real world statistical analysis. The same is the case for a fear of "beat/shot/tazed" mistakenly by LE.
Present the raw statistics against the numbers of "victimized by crime" and you have a discussion.

As many muggings go unreported as police misconduct incidents. I have no faith that a gathering of numbers would be legitimate representation of anything. Regardless of the numbers, it won't change my apprehension of the police. I will focus on gathering information on dealing with them.

My feelings may be unfounded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VNB7Z40w00

Maybe not.

 

[Coded-Dude]

i suppose when it comes to convicting one of a crime intent is everything. on that point i agree. I guess what I was trying to purvey is that the officer had no need to draw any firearm(lethal or not). there are plenty of videos of this incident if you want to see what happened.

 

[eye95]

intention has nothing to do with it.....

"my intention was to hurry up and pick my girlfriend up from work, not run over a child crossing the street"...

Intentions are important. They determine whether an action is a crime or not and determine the severity of the crime.

In the case of this officer, the jury decided that he did not intend to pull his gun and shoot the victim. However, he was grossly negligent, still making his actions a crime, just a much less severe crime.

In the example of killing someone with a car, the crime and sentence will be less severe if someone is speeding and kills another vice deliberately running someone over with the intent to kill. The former will be some form of negligent homicide or manslaughter. The latter will be capital murder.

 

[Coded-Dude]

I already conceded th point of "INTENT" in regards to finding guilt/innocence of a crime.

Yes he did not INTEND to murder the victim. However, there was no real justification for pulling a firearm(lethal or not).

 

[Repeater]

David Codrea compiles 'raw statistics'

Sure you can. Balance that against the actual number of crimes, and you have statistics. Without the other numbers, you simply have one side of it. IMHO, ONE such instance is too many. But, for further discussion, I refer you to the term "innumeracy." Many persons are afraid of flying because plane crashes make the news, while completely ignoring that the reality is that a person has a MUCH greater chance of dying in a car on the way to the airport than in a plane crash.


The view of "die in a plane crash" is a view based upon fear, and is not based in real world statistical analysis. The same is the case for a fear of "beat/shot/tazed" mistakenly by LE.
Present the raw statistics against the numbers of "victimized by crime" and you have a discussion.

Over at War on Guns, David Codrea compiles raw data on cops gone bad, under the topic "The Only Ones" -- you can peruse here.

As for why this is important, David writes:

[size=+1]About "The Only Ones"[/size]

The purpose of this feature has never been to bash cops.

The only reason I do this is to amass a credible body of evidence to present when those who would deny our right to keep and bear arms use the argument that only government enforcers are professional and trained enough to do so safely and responsibly. And it's also used to illustrate when those of official status, rank or privilege, both in law enforcement and in some other government position, get special breaks not available to we commoners, particularly (but not exclusively) when they're involved in gun-related incidents.

 

[wrightme]

Over at War on Guns, David Codrea compiles raw data on cops gone bad, under the topic "The Only Ones" -- you can peruse here.

As for why this is important, David writes:

And how does that match the other side? The acts perpetrated by non-LE criminals?

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

And how does that match the other side? The acts perpetrated by non-LE criminals?

That is a non-issue for me. I have the right to resist and even fight back until the threat has ended with people from "the other side".

DELETED AND EDITED BY FULLER MALARKEY

EDIT: I prefer to stay focused on learning how to deal with police encounters. It is far more important to me than mud slinging.

 

[wrightme]

redacted

 

[eye95]

No, that is not correct. Unless you are claiming that all LE are criminals, which is a direct violation of the policies of this site.

+1

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

That is a non-issue for me. I have the right to resist and even fight back until the threat has ended with people from "the other side".

DELETED AND EDITED BY FULLER MALARKEY

EDIT: I prefer to stay focused on learning how to deal with police encounters. It is far more important to me than mud slinging.

Fixed.

 

[jtrider]

I was kind of getting into this thread on how to break free from police without getting arrested. I found another thread that does a pretty good ob of describing what Mallarky was asking about. Without the distractions

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...n-officer-asks-the-said-person-for-I.D./page3
Post number 61 does a real good job of explaining what could go on whne stopped by police. I think that draws a good picture of how things could go? It is not black or white.

 

[Deanimator]

I was kind of getting into this thread on how to break free from police without getting arrested.

You don't WANT to "break free from police". You want to establish with legal CERTAINTY whether you're being HELD AGAINST YOUR WILL.

If the police either tell you that you are free to leave, or won't tell you WHETHER you're free to leave, merely trying to walk away forces them to fish or cut bait.

If police physically restrain you or merely demand that you remain in a commanding tone of voice, a reasonable person would believe that he was not free to leave. In that case, invoke your right to remain silent, utilize your voice recorder where lawful to do so, and give the police all of the rope they need to hang themselves.

If the police tell you that you're free to leave or won't tell you and then attempt to command or physically compel your presence, they clearly do NOT have Reasonable Articulable Suspicion of a crime. They're committing both crimes and civil torts against you. Let THEM be the ones to incriminate THEMSELVES.

 

[wrightme]

+1 Deanimator.

 

[Coded-Dude]

+2 to that sentiment