|
nm posted:Well, you can, but your fear has to be reasonable, which it wasn't here. yeah that's what I meant and poorly worded instead
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 03:01 |
|
|
e: oh well beat then.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:fortunately assault doesn't work that way yes it does, you do not have to wait to get punched to defend yourself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:yes it does, you do not have to wait to get punched to defend yourself. #1 see my post above, I'll own up to being not clear at all in the quoted post #2 there's no way the officer in the courtroom can claim that when the defense attorney was outnumbered and unarmed
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
They just wanted to torture the attorney for winning, wtf @ the nerds in this thread trying to justify it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
in my combat experience the lawyer was about to go hogwild
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:#1 see my post above, I'll own up to being not clear at all in the quoted post I'm agnostic verging on supporting the charges being tossed, but this is simply incorrect. If you square off against a cop, it does not matter if you are unarmed and there are more of them, use of force is legitimate. A cop does not have to wait to get hit just because backup is already there. Whether that was justified in this particular case is a different question, but being 5'6", unarmed, and outnumbered does not somehow mean, as a general principle, that police cannot use force in the case of the reasonable belief of an imminent assault or active resistance to a lawful arrest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
 bro stop defending police brutality. they hosed up. Darkman Fanpage has issued a correction as of 20:28 on Dec 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:I'm agnostic verging on supporting the charges being tossed, but this is simply incorrect. If you square off against a cop, it does not matter if you are unarmed and there are more of them, use of force is legitimate. A cop does not have to wait to get hit just because backup is already there. Whether that was justified in this particular case is a different question, but being 5'6", unarmed, and outnumbered does not somehow mean, as a general principle, that police cannot use force in the case of the reasonable belief of an imminent assault or active resistance to a lawful arrest. what if a judge is ordering them to stop, like, right there in that very room private citizens also have the right to defend themselves from police overreach
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:yes it does, you do not have to wait to get punched to defend yourself. If someone is holding a weapon on you, that is a violent act and you can defend yourself. You can't punch someone unarmed who hasn't done anything and claim "Well, their posture was threatening." That's how you get militia pointing guns at federal agents and....wait.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:They just wanted to torture the attorney for winning, wtf @ the nerds in this thread trying to justify it. It's just one nerd, isn't it? The rest of us are telling him that's dumb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Darkman Fanpage posted:
I'm pretty clearly not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:I'm pretty clearly not. Wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:If someone is holding a weapon on you, that is a violent act and you can defend yourself. Yeah the "who hasn't done anything" is the operative language. If you are under the impression that you (or a cop) are powerless to do anything if someone takes a fighting stance and gets ready to hit you, I don't know what to tell you other than that you're simply incorrect. You certainly don't have to wait until someone literally points a weapon at you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:I'm pretty clearly not. you're assuming the defense attorney took up the traditional Marquees of Queensberry stance and that simply hasn't been proven e- the judge requesting the officers stand down actually refutes that
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:you're assuming the defense attorney took up the traditional Marquees of Queensberry stance and that simply hasn't been proven I have no idea whether he did or not, and haven't said he did. Several people here are arguing affirmatively he absolutely did not, based on incomplete information, which is a stupid overreaction. The report says he did. Some media reports are consistent with that, and some are not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
What if police officers had to be good examples to the community instead of people who fly off the handle and are threatened by the slightest stiff wind?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:I have no idea whether he did or not, and haven't said he did. Several people here are arguing affirmatively he absolutely did not, based on incomplete information, which is a stupid overreaction. The report says he did. Some media reports are consistent with that, and some are not. I trust the federal judge's assessment in any case, if he was approached by a team of officers while the judge is telling them to stand down and he did square up, it's still potentially justifiable on his part
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Yeah, no, Ammon Bundy, you can't just fight the police.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Yeah, no, Ammon Bundy, you can't just fight the police. quote:"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." (Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308, 34 N.E. 968 (1893). — the Supreme Court of Indiana).
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Yeah, no, Ammon Bundy, you can't just fight the police. Your accusation isn't even that he actually fought him, it's that he thought about defending himself. You would think that when you have a federal judge literally right there, on your side, saying out loud that the police are in the wrong, that would be one place where it would be hard to argue that maybe falling into a self defense stance against oncoming assailants might be justified, esp. if you never actually take a swing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Here is a friendly law tip: Don't found a sweeping conclusion of law on a 123 year old case from Indiana.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Your accusation The only "accusation" I am making is that posters itt are reaching conclusions that go beyond available information and huffing and puffing over misunderstandings of the law as it applies to both self defense and use of force under the fourth amendment. I have no particular accusation to level at Marcus Mumford.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
quote:"The offense of resisting arrest, both at common law and under the statute, G.S. § 14-223, presupposes a lawful arrest." State v. Mobley, 1954
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Under common law there was a recognized right to resist an illegal arrest. Over the years, as the criminal law was codified and modernized, that common law rule has been substantially eroded. This took off around the time the model penal code came into being. As a result, you can find some old cases making reference to the "axiomatic" right, but you're going to have a very hard time walking into a courtroom today and asserting that right in a situation as mundane as this courtroom. For one, courts that have looked at it in the last few decades have generally required the force used to be reasonable. Many, most?, have required that resisting arrest be necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death. Squaring off against cops who slowly approach or put their hand on your arm almost certainly does not meet that standard. It is almost certainly possible to see that right vindicated in a court today in a particularly egregious case. For instance, had Rodney King fought back. Had Walter Scott fought that SC cop after getting shot in the back. Etc. But as a general proposition of law, to suggest that you are entitled to fight the police any time you think they are wrong, is just not true. It will get you hurt if you act like that's the case in real life, and you will lose in court afterward. This is exactly the sort of insane overreaction I am talking about. Mumford's case maybe/probably should be tossed, if for no other reason than to validate the notion that attorneys should have very wide latitude in a courtroom with a client. It's entirely possible those marshals are aggro assholes who deserve to get sued. (It's also possible it was a chaotic scene and they acted reasonably, or that Mumford actually did square off with them.) Regardless of whether that does or should happen, to get so mad as to suggest that the proper - or legal - response is to fight the police is ridiculous. He was out in two hours. He has a court date. If he feels his rights were violated he is free to sue. This whole idea of if you disagree with the government you can fight them, and I googled "right to resist arrest" for five minutes so its LEGAL, is exactly how you get to the Bundy standoffs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Are you trying to say the officers were justified or not, and if not, what point are you actually trying to make here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Are you trying to say the officers were justified or not, and if not, what point are you actually trying to make here. Kazak_Hstan posted:The only "accusation" I am making is that posters itt are reaching conclusions that go beyond available information and huffing and puffing over misunderstandings of the law as it applies to both self defense and use of force under the fourth amendment. I have no particular accusation to level at Marcus Mumford.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
no one here has said he was justified, either
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Yeah no, lol, your first post on the topic was saying you had no sympathy for the guy and trying to justify the marshal's actions. All that had been said on the issue before then was: nm posted:This is every bullshit resisting police report I've ever read except it involves a rich white dude instead of a poor black/hispanic dude. and you responded by trying to explain how the marshal's were actually justified based on the scenario only they described and you have no sympathy for the guy getting tased and poo poo. It was pretty dumb, and your stupid argument isn't based around "huffing and puffing over misunderstandings of the law as it applies to both self defense and use of force under the fourth amendment" and no one is stupid enough to pretend it is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Re: resisting an illegal arrest: It varies on the state. In california, you can legally resist an illegal arrest (but you'd better be correct, there is no "oops" defense).
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
you know if you get tazed its like yourr down for 6 hours just saying jesus titty loving christ government facists puttin 1000volts across the nipples of a lawyer and beat his rear end just for sass is way out of loving line
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
mod sass irl
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Yeah no, lol, your first post on the topic was saying you had no sympathy for the guy and trying to justify the marshal's actions. I said I have no sympathy for him IF he did what the report said. Even fuckin nm would probably not make excuses for him actually squaring off to fight the marshals. But feel free to continue willfully misreading things as it suits you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:I said I have no sympathy for him IF he did what the report said. Even fuckin nm would probably not make excuses for him actually squaring off to fight the marshals. But feel free to continue willfully misreading things as it suits you. When a cop starts talking about how their honed combat instincts respond to slight movements of the perp's body, it usually means they didn't bother to make up an excuse for beating up or shooting the person until after they did it lol if you think a loving defense lawyer was gonna punch a us marshal in the face in front of a judge and several other us marshals
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:When a cop starts talking about how their honed combat instincts respond to slight movements of the perp's body, it usually means they didn't bother to make up an excuse for beating up or shooting the person until after they did it quote:
I'm really not seeing the honed instincts and subtle twitches. That is all pretty reasonable, if it actually happened that way, which is the part nobody here actually knows. We have fragmentary accounts mostly second-hand. Some say he didn't get in the marshals' way, some say he did. Some say he didn't do anything physical, some say he raised his arms as they approached. Some say he was talking to the judge, Mumford himself said he was addressing the marshals directly as they approached him. I don't know what actually happened and neither does anyone here, you're all just jerking yourselves off because the word "combat" was in the report.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
that probably has more to due with laws against the military being used against civilians and the increased militarization of police than it does this particular case maybe cops shouldn't have historically been assholes and more people would take them at their word
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:I'm really not seeing the honed instincts and subtle twitches. That is all pretty reasonable, if it actually happened that way, which is the part nobody here actually knows. We have fragmentary accounts mostly second-hand. Some say he didn't get in the marshals' way, some say he did. Some say he didn't do anything physical, some say he raised his arms as they approached. Some say he was talking to the judge, Mumford himself said he was addressing the marshals directly as they approached him. Yes, yes, anything is possible, you're just asking questions, we don't know the real facts of the matter, we get it. If the facts of the matter are, in fact, not in line with every piece of evidence we have beyond a personal account that reads very much like bullshit from the officer in question, if his statement is true, then the person who was assaulted also did something wrong. Is that all? Can we move on?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
I don't know, you seem really personally invested in my opinion, can you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:I'm really not seeing the honed instincts and subtle twitches. That is all pretty reasonable, if it actually happened that way, which is the part nobody here actually knows. We have fragmentary accounts mostly second-hand. Some say he didn't get in the marshals' way, some say he did. Some say he didn't do anything physical, some say he raised his arms as they approached. Some say he was talking to the judge, Mumford himself said he was addressing the marshals directly as they approached him. if alarms don't start going off in your head when you see phrases like "pre-assault indicators" and "boxer's stance" then you're not nearly familiar enough with police brutality it's like how, according to police shooting reports, black males with guns and gun-like objects have an apparently irresistible compulsion to raise them at any cop they see even if the cop is just passing by
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 03:01 |
|
|
Law enforcement hates sov cit bullshit so much they will treat them like black people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 23:56
|
|
