Deon Kay shooting: DC police release video of deadly encounter after protests

[pknopp]

Responding to a report of a man with a gun? Is this what the NRA wants? The cops called every time someone see's someone carrying?

Caller: I want to report a man with a gun.

911: Is he doing anything illegal? Robbing someone? Threatening someone"?

Caller: Not that I know.

911: Then there is really little we can do.

What am I missing?

Two police officers were shot at in DC shortly before that all went down.

DC Moms are the ones calling for more gun control because they are tired of their children even if those children are adults being shot. It is their cultural issues and they should deal with that first and foremost but instead they want otherse to be limited because they cannot control their out of control adult children.

It is not lawful for an 18 year old to open carry in DC, it requires a license to open carry in DC and for gangs and thug types regardless of their color in crime ridden areas 'yes call the cops if you see something suspicious'.

A License to Carry a Handgun is required to legally carry a concealed handgun in the District of Columbia. ... Licenses are granted to residents and non-residents. Concealed carry licenses issued by other jurisdictions are not valid in D.C. A license to carry is required for possessing a loaded handgun in a vehicle.

The person in question was an adult and you didn't address my question. Is the idea of open carry for someone to call the police on you every time someone see's you open carry?

No. If a state allows for open carry and the firearm is in its holster and the person isn't acting irrationally, that is acceptable. You call the police when you see someone actually brandishing the firearm in a threatening manner, otherwise, ignore it. If the state doesn't allow open carry and a person is seen with a firearm, then by all means, call the police. The individual will be relieved of his/her weapon and taken into custody and if he/she resists, the shooting commences. The same is true of large knives, machetes or swords being carried. Call the cops.
A problem states have is regarding the public ignorance of their states existing laws regarding the carrying and use of firearms. They live in urban areas and go about their lives without seeing a firearm, outside of on the hip of a law enforcement officer. You look up the law(s) regarding firearms in your state to educate yourself. It is estimated that there are close to 100 million "law-abiding" citizens owning approximately 300+ million firearms, who aren't out causing mayhem. Most who carry firearms, do so legally via their concealed weapons permit and go about their daily business without you even knowing they are armed. They are the "good guys" in this. The large increase of shootings in the inner-cities are primarily caused by gangs and criminals that have obtained stolen or what they call, "ghost guns," guns made without serial numbers, so they can't be traced. If you know of any gang members in the inner-city that carry weapons, call the cops and they'll check it out. If the guns turn out to have been stolen, they'll be returned to their rightful owner.

I can read between the lines here. "gang members" unless removed through the legal system have the same rights as anyone else.

Gang members of known criminal entities lose certain rights when they join those criminal enterprises in many states. What is not legal or will not stand is law enforcement listing people as a criminal gang member when in fact they are not.

Inclusion in Texas Gang Membership Database Limits Gun Rights, Might Violate Due Process

From Apodaca-Fisk v. Allen, decided Monday by Judge Dadvid C. Guaderrama (W.D. Tex.): The following facts derive from Plaintiff's [Complaint]…

reason.com

Guilt by association is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. The Constitution guarantee's free association.

 

[RodISHI]

Responding to a report of a man with a gun? Is this what the NRA wants? The cops called every time someone see's someone carrying?

Caller: I want to report a man with a gun.

911: Is he doing anything illegal? Robbing someone? Threatening someone"?

Caller: Not that I know.

911: Then there is really little we can do.

What am I missing?

Two police officers were shot at in DC shortly before that all went down.

DC Moms are the ones calling for more gun control because they are tired of their children even if those children are adults being shot. It is their cultural issues and they should deal with that first and foremost but instead they want otherse to be limited because they cannot control their out of control adult children.

It is not lawful for an 18 year old to open carry in DC, it requires a license to open carry in DC and for gangs and thug types regardless of their color in crime ridden areas 'yes call the cops if you see something suspicious'.

A License to Carry a Handgun is required to legally carry a concealed handgun in the District of Columbia. ... Licenses are granted to residents and non-residents. Concealed carry licenses issued by other jurisdictions are not valid in D.C. A license to carry is required for possessing a loaded handgun in a vehicle.

The person in question was an adult and you didn't address my question. Is the idea of open carry for someone to call the police on you every time someone see's you open carry?

No. If a state allows for open carry and the firearm is in its holster and the person isn't acting irrationally, that is acceptable. You call the police when you see someone actually brandishing the firearm in a threatening manner, otherwise, ignore it. If the state doesn't allow open carry and a person is seen with a firearm, then by all means, call the police. The individual will be relieved of his/her weapon and taken into custody and if he/she resists, the shooting commences. The same is true of large knives, machetes or swords being carried. Call the cops.
A problem states have is regarding the public ignorance of their states existing laws regarding the carrying and use of firearms. They live in urban areas and go about their lives without seeing a firearm, outside of on the hip of a law enforcement officer. You look up the law(s) regarding firearms in your state to educate yourself. It is estimated that there are close to 100 million "law-abiding" citizens owning approximately 300+ million firearms, who aren't out causing mayhem. Most who carry firearms, do so legally via their concealed weapons permit and go about their daily business without you even knowing they are armed. They are the "good guys" in this. The large increase of shootings in the inner-cities are primarily caused by gangs and criminals that have obtained stolen or what they call, "ghost guns," guns made without serial numbers, so they can't be traced. If you know of any gang members in the inner-city that carry weapons, call the cops and they'll check it out. If the guns turn out to have been stolen, they'll be returned to their rightful owner.

I can read between the lines here. "gang members" unless removed through the legal system have the same rights as anyone else.

Gang members of known criminal entities lose certain rights when they join those criminal enterprises in many states. What is not legal or will not stand is law enforcement listing people as a criminal gang member when in fact they are not.

Inclusion in Texas Gang Membership Database Limits Gun Rights, Might Violate Due Process

From Apodaca-Fisk v. Allen, decided Monday by Judge Dadvid C. Guaderrama (W.D. Tex.): The following facts derive from Plaintiff's [Complaint]…

reason.com

Guilt by association is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. The Constitution guarantee's free association.

Federal Criminal Street Gangs Offense: 18 U.S. Code Chapter 26

Involvement with criminal street gangs can result in federal criminal charges. Learn more from a federal criminal defense attorney.

www.lvcriminaldefense.com

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Those who open carry never remove their gun to show someone it?

No. Fuck no. A firearm is not a toy or show piece. Keep that shit holstered unless you intend to use it.

I've seen it done quite often.

That is risky behavior.

But, if one does pull his weapon for such a non-threatening showboat session, he should at least comply with police orders to NOT MOVE AND DROP THE WEAPON, should he not? Running away (resisting arrest) while holding that gun is a recipe for getting LAWFULLY smoke by a cop, won't you fucking agree?

This is so fucking ridiculous. I am sick of your motherfuckers IGNORING the dangerous behavior of "black men" which is the sole cause of their deaths.

No. No one should ever be approached by a police officer for showing someone else his gun. Unless he is doing something illegal or legitimately believed to have done something illegal that a police officer can state he should never be approached by a police officer to do anything.

I don't disagree, but a lot of times the situation is unclear and it requires cops gathering information. It sure makes things go a whole lot smother when one doesn't....I don't know....RUN or START PUNCHING police. The last thing one would want to do in that situation is give the cops a reason to feel threatened. They have a right to be safe too, do they not?

That right does not negate the rights of others. Running doesn't give the police the right to shoot anyone. If they are running they are not a threat to the officer.

Punching? It depends on the situation. A citizen has as much of a right to protect themselves as a police officer does.

Texas prosecutors drop charges against Black man arrested while jogging

This man was arrested because the cops say he kicked them. The prosecutor dismissed all charges. They had NO reason to touch him.

Watch the news. More and more police forces are noting how they are going to change the way officers are trained. "Because I say so" is no longer going to be enough.

"Because I say so" does NOT give an officer the right to violate someone's rights.

Due process for said "violation of someone's rights" is not carried out with the cop on the street. You don't get to tell the cop no when a cop give you an order that's lawful. You don't get to not surrender when you're being arrested. You don't get to resist arrest. Knock off this fucking bullshit and quit pretending Black people are above the fucking law.

yes, "because I say so" is going to be good enough in the moment. Your remedy for unlawful police behavior is the legal process. You don't get to say fuck you cop I'm not doing it.

If a cop is giving you a lawful order (a.k.a. freeze, don't move, or pull over, or get out of your vehicle) you better fucking do it or things will continue to escalate and you might get shot.

We have to decide right now if police officers are going to have the authority to make lawful arrests. If that's off the table, then give me my fucking machine gun and disband cops all together.

so tell me, is it your position that police officers are not allowed to give lawful orders and make lawful arrests? Go on record right fucking now.

 

[pknopp]

Responding to a report of a man with a gun? Is this what the NRA wants? The cops called every time someone see's someone carrying?

Caller: I want to report a man with a gun.

911: Is he doing anything illegal? Robbing someone? Threatening someone"?

Caller: Not that I know.

911: Then there is really little we can do.

What am I missing?

Two police officers were shot at in DC shortly before that all went down.

DC Moms are the ones calling for more gun control because they are tired of their children even if those children are adults being shot. It is their cultural issues and they should deal with that first and foremost but instead they want otherse to be limited because they cannot control their out of control adult children.

It is not lawful for an 18 year old to open carry in DC, it requires a license to open carry in DC and for gangs and thug types regardless of their color in crime ridden areas 'yes call the cops if you see something suspicious'.

A License to Carry a Handgun is required to legally carry a concealed handgun in the District of Columbia. ... Licenses are granted to residents and non-residents. Concealed carry licenses issued by other jurisdictions are not valid in D.C. A license to carry is required for possessing a loaded handgun in a vehicle.

The person in question was an adult and you didn't address my question. Is the idea of open carry for someone to call the police on you every time someone see's you open carry?

No. If a state allows for open carry and the firearm is in its holster and the person isn't acting irrationally, that is acceptable. You call the police when you see someone actually brandishing the firearm in a threatening manner, otherwise, ignore it. If the state doesn't allow open carry and a person is seen with a firearm, then by all means, call the police. The individual will be relieved of his/her weapon and taken into custody and if he/she resists, the shooting commences. The same is true of large knives, machetes or swords being carried. Call the cops.
A problem states have is regarding the public ignorance of their states existing laws regarding the carrying and use of firearms. They live in urban areas and go about their lives without seeing a firearm, outside of on the hip of a law enforcement officer. You look up the law(s) regarding firearms in your state to educate yourself. It is estimated that there are close to 100 million "law-abiding" citizens owning approximately 300+ million firearms, who aren't out causing mayhem. Most who carry firearms, do so legally via their concealed weapons permit and go about their daily business without you even knowing they are armed. They are the "good guys" in this. The large increase of shootings in the inner-cities are primarily caused by gangs and criminals that have obtained stolen or what they call, "ghost guns," guns made without serial numbers, so they can't be traced. If you know of any gang members in the inner-city that carry weapons, call the cops and they'll check it out. If the guns turn out to have been stolen, they'll be returned to their rightful owner.

I can read between the lines here. "gang members" unless removed through the legal system have the same rights as anyone else.

Gang members of known criminal entities lose certain rights when they join those criminal enterprises in many states. What is not legal or will not stand is law enforcement listing people as a criminal gang member when in fact they are not.

Inclusion in Texas Gang Membership Database Limits Gun Rights, Might Violate Due Process

From Apodaca-Fisk v. Allen, decided Monday by Judge Dadvid C. Guaderrama (W.D. Tex.): The following facts derive from Plaintiff's [Complaint]…

reason.com

Guilt by association is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. The Constitution guarantee's free association.

Federal Criminal Street Gangs Offense: 18 U.S. Code Chapter 26

Involvement with criminal street gangs can result in federal criminal charges. Learn more from a federal criminal defense attorney.

www.lvcriminaldefense.com

From your link.

Becoming involved in a criminal street gang is unlawful within the United States, and when you engage in gang activity in violation of the law, you can face serious consequences.

That is not guilt by association. That is guilt by committing a crime.

 

[pknopp]

Those who open carry never remove their gun to show someone it?

No. Fuck no. A firearm is not a toy or show piece. Keep that shit holstered unless you intend to use it.

I've seen it done quite often.

That is risky behavior.

But, if one does pull his weapon for such a non-threatening showboat session, he should at least comply with police orders to NOT MOVE AND DROP THE WEAPON, should he not? Running away (resisting arrest) while holding that gun is a recipe for getting LAWFULLY smoke by a cop, won't you fucking agree?

This is so fucking ridiculous. I am sick of your motherfuckers IGNORING the dangerous behavior of "black men" which is the sole cause of their deaths.

No. No one should ever be approached by a police officer for showing someone else his gun. Unless he is doing something illegal or legitimately believed to have done something illegal that a police officer can state he should never be approached by a police officer to do anything.

I don't disagree, but a lot of times the situation is unclear and it requires cops gathering information. It sure makes things go a whole lot smother when one doesn't....I don't know....RUN or START PUNCHING police. The last thing one would want to do in that situation is give the cops a reason to feel threatened. They have a right to be safe too, do they not?

That right does not negate the rights of others. Running doesn't give the police the right to shoot anyone. If they are running they are not a threat to the officer.

Punching? It depends on the situation. A citizen has as much of a right to protect themselves as a police officer does.

Texas prosecutors drop charges against Black man arrested while jogging

This man was arrested because the cops say he kicked them. The prosecutor dismissed all charges. They had NO reason to touch him.

Watch the news. More and more police forces are noting how they are going to change the way officers are trained. "Because I say so" is no longer going to be enough.

"Because I say so" does NOT give an officer the right to violate someone's rights.

Due process for said "violation of someone's rights" is not carried out with the cop on the street. You don't get to tell the cop no when a cop give you an order that's lawful. You don't get to not surrender when you're being arrested. You don't get to resist arrest. Knock off this fucking bullshit and quit pretending Black people are above the fucking law.

In the link I posted the cops were obvious upset because the man refused to give his name even though he had no legal obligation to do so. The argument 9 times out of 10 is to just give in and take it up in court. No.

When they asked his name and he stated he is not legally obligated to do so they need to drop it. That's the law.

yes, "because I say so" is going to be good enough in the moment. Your remedy for unlawful police behavior is the legal process. You don't get to say fuck you cop I'm not doing it.

In the example I posted he said "no". All charges were dropped. There never should have been charges. He will likely get a nice check for this.

If a cop is giving you a lawful order (a.k.a. freeze, don't move, or pull over, or get out of your vehicle) you better fucking do it or things will continue to escalate and you might get shot.

We have to decide right now if police officers are going to have the authority to make lawful arrests. If that's off the table, then give me my fucking machine gun and disband cops all together.

so tell me, is it your position that police officers are not allowed to give lawful orders and make lawful arrests? Go on record right fucking now.

Yes, they can give lawful orders......."Because I said so" is not a lawful order alone. It's why Brian Encinia was fired.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The argument 9 times out of 10 is to just give in and take it up in court. No.

So, when a cop asks your name it is your opinion that you're not required to give it to him without reason. And, if the police officer tries to arrest you, you're within your rights to resist that arrest. Is that what you were saying?

 

[pknopp]

The argument 9 times out of 10 is to just give in and take it up in court. No.

So, when a asks your name it is your opinion that you're not required to give it to him without reason. And, if the police officer tries to arrest you, you're within your rights to resist that arrest. Is that what you were saying?

In the example I posted the prosecutor said it was his right to not give his name. The law says it was his right.

"Generally, a person is under no obligation to identify themselves to police during a routine encounter,

Charges dropped against jogger who was arrested by San Antonio police

Does this bother you? So what I said is not simply an opinion. It's a fact and the law.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The argument 9 times out of 10 is to just give in and take it up in court. No.

So, when a asks your name it is your opinion that you're not required to give it to him without reason. And, if the police officer tries to arrest you, you're within your rights to resist that arrest. Is that what you were saying?

In the example I posted the prosecutor said it was his right to not give his name. The law says it was his right.

"Generally, a person is under no obligation to identify themselves to police during a routine encounter,

Charges dropped against jogger who was arrested by San Antonio police

Does this bother you? So what I said is not simply an opinion. It's a fact and the law.

no. I agree with that and I'm glad for it.

What I'm saying is that just because you believe you are right, there in the moment, on the street, facing the cop, does not give you the right to resist arrest. Even if you believe the arrest is baseless, you still don't have the right to resist or run away, etc. You have to get your day in court, not on the street.

Do you see the difference?

 

[pknopp]

The argument 9 times out of 10 is to just give in and take it up in court. No.

So, when a asks your name it is your opinion that you're not required to give it to him without reason. And, if the police officer tries to arrest you, you're within your rights to resist that arrest. Is that what you were saying?

In the example I posted the prosecutor said it was his right to not give his name. The law says it was his right.

"Generally, a person is under no obligation to identify themselves to police during a routine encounter,

Charges dropped against jogger who was arrested by San Antonio police

Does this bother you? So what I said is not simply an opinion. It's a fact and the law.

no. I agree with that and I'm glad for it.

What I'm saying is that just because you believe you are right, there in the moment, on the street, facing the cop, does not give you the right to resist arrest. Even if you believe the arrest is baseless, you still don't have the right to resist or run away, etc. You have to get your day in court, not on the street.

Do you see the difference?

You need to indeed know you are right. This man knew he was right. I believe a part of reform is trying to make people more aware of what their rights are and what they are not.

If the arrest is indeed baseless as we see here you do have the right to resist. Not only do people need to know their rights, the police need to understand them and understand that repercussions for violating them will be swift.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The argument 9 times out of 10 is to just give in and take it up in court. No.

So, when a asks your name it is your opinion that you're not required to give it to him without reason. And, if the police officer tries to arrest you, you're within your rights to resist that arrest. Is that what you were saying?

In the example I posted the prosecutor said it was his right to not give his name. The law says it was his right.

"Generally, a person is under no obligation to identify themselves to police during a routine encounter,

Charges dropped against jogger who was arrested by San Antonio police

Does this bother you? So what I said is not simply an opinion. It's a fact and the law.

no. I agree with that and I'm glad for it.

What I'm saying is that just because you believe you are right, there in the moment, on the street, facing the cop, does not give you the right to resist arrest. Even if you believe the arrest is baseless, you still don't have the right to resist or run away, etc. You have to get your day in court, not on the street.

Do you see the difference?

You need to indeed know you are right. This man knew he was right. I believe a part of reform is trying to make people more aware of what their rights are and what they are not.

If the arrest is indeed baseless as we see here you do have the right to resist. Not only do people need to know their rights, the police need to understand them and understand that repercussions for violating them will be swift.

you're saying that if a person believes that they are being arrested on baseless charges then they are entitled to resist arrest?

So, what your are saying, in essence, is that anyone and everyone should be allowed to resist arrest?

 

[pknopp]

The argument 9 times out of 10 is to just give in and take it up in court. No.

So, when a asks your name it is your opinion that you're not required to give it to him without reason. And, if the police officer tries to arrest you, you're within your rights to resist that arrest. Is that what you were saying?

In the example I posted the prosecutor said it was his right to not give his name. The law says it was his right.

"Generally, a person is under no obligation to identify themselves to police during a routine encounter,

Charges dropped against jogger who was arrested by San Antonio police

Does this bother you? So what I said is not simply an opinion. It's a fact and the law.

no. I agree with that and I'm glad for it.

What I'm saying is that just because you believe you are right, there in the moment, on the street, facing the cop, does not give you the right to resist arrest. Even if you believe the arrest is baseless, you still don't have the right to resist or run away, etc. You have to get your day in court, not on the street.

Do you see the difference?

You need to indeed know you are right. This man knew he was right. I believe a part of reform is trying to make people more aware of what their rights are and what they are not.

If the arrest is indeed baseless as we see here you do have the right to resist. Not only do people need to know their rights, the police need to understand them and understand that repercussions for violating them will be swift.

you're saying that if a person believes that they are being arrested on baseless charges then they are entitled to resist arrest?

You know very well that isn't what I said. I said they need to know their rights.

So, what your are saying, in essence, is that anyone and everyone should be allowed to resist arrest?

When you are left with no valid argument, make one up.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The argument 9 times out of 10 is to just give in and take it up in court. No.

So, when a asks your name it is your opinion that you're not required to give it to him without reason. And, if the police officer tries to arrest you, you're within your rights to resist that arrest. Is that what you were saying?

In the example I posted the prosecutor said it was his right to not give his name. The law says it was his right.

"Generally, a person is under no obligation to identify themselves to police during a routine encounter,

Charges dropped against jogger who was arrested by San Antonio police

Does this bother you? So what I said is not simply an opinion. It's a fact and the law.

no. I agree with that and I'm glad for it.

What I'm saying is that just because you believe you are right, there in the moment, on the street, facing the cop, does not give you the right to resist arrest. Even if you believe the arrest is baseless, you still don't have the right to resist or run away, etc. You have to get your day in court, not on the street.

Do you see the difference?

You need to indeed know you are right. This man knew he was right. I believe a part of reform is trying to make people more aware of what their rights are and what they are not.

If the arrest is indeed baseless as we see here you do have the right to resist. Not only do people need to know their rights, the police need to understand them and understand that repercussions for violating them will be swift.

you're saying that if a person believes that they are being arrested on baseless charges then they are entitled to resist arrest?

You know very well that isn't what I said. I said they need to know their rights.

So, what your are saying, in essence, is that anyone and everyone should be allowed to resist arrest?

When you are left with no valid argument, make one up.

and nobody is going to not know, right?

You just don't see the error in your reasoning do you?

You want adjudication on the street. You may not think that's what you want, but that's what you're asking for.

"I didn't do it" is not an excuse to resist. Everybody believes they didn't do it. Didn't you see Shawshank Redemption?

If that's the case that those who are "right" are entitled to resist arrest, who gets to decide if they are right, and when? What happens if it escalates to violence?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The argument 9 times out of 10 is to just give in and take it up in court. No.

So, when a asks your name it is your opinion that you're not required to give it to him without reason. And, if the police officer tries to arrest you, you're within your rights to resist that arrest. Is that what you were saying?

In the example I posted the prosecutor said it was his right to not give his name. The law says it was his right.

"Generally, a person is under no obligation to identify themselves to police during a routine encounter,

Charges dropped against jogger who was arrested by San Antonio police

Does this bother you? So what I said is not simply an opinion. It's a fact and the law.

no. I agree with that and I'm glad for it.

What I'm saying is that just because you believe you are right, there in the moment, on the street, facing the cop, does not give you the right to resist arrest. Even if you believe the arrest is baseless, you still don't have the right to resist or run away, etc. You have to get your day in court, not on the street.

Do you see the difference?

You need to indeed know you are right. This man knew he was right. I believe a part of reform is trying to make people more aware of what their rights are and what they are not.

If the arrest is indeed baseless as we see here you do have the right to resist. Not only do people need to know their rights, the police need to understand them and understand that repercussions for violating them will be swift.

you're saying that if a person believes that they are being arrested on baseless charges then they are entitled to resist arrest?

You know very well that isn't what I said. I said they need to know their rights.

So, what your are saying, in essence, is that anyone and everyone should be allowed to resist arrest?

When you are left with no valid argument, make one up.

Let me ask it this way:

Say a police officer asked you to identify yourself for no reason. You tell the police officer to pound sand. The police officer says you're under arrest for failure to identify (which failure is not illegal). You say fuck no, I am not under arrest. The police officer attempts to arrest you by force. You resist.

How much resistance are you allowed to put up? To the point of violence? To the point of drawing a firearm? Shooting the cop? Jumping in the car and speeding away on the high-speed chase? Taking a hostage?

Hopefully now you see the problem?

 

[pknopp]

The argument 9 times out of 10 is to just give in and take it up in court. No.

So, when a asks your name it is your opinion that you're not required to give it to him without reason. And, if the police officer tries to arrest you, you're within your rights to resist that arrest. Is that what you were saying?

In the example I posted the prosecutor said it was his right to not give his name. The law says it was his right.

"Generally, a person is under no obligation to identify themselves to police during a routine encounter,

Charges dropped against jogger who was arrested by San Antonio police

Does this bother you? So what I said is not simply an opinion. It's a fact and the law.

no. I agree with that and I'm glad for it.

What I'm saying is that just because you believe you are right, there in the moment, on the street, facing the cop, does not give you the right to resist arrest. Even if you believe the arrest is baseless, you still don't have the right to resist or run away, etc. You have to get your day in court, not on the street.

Do you see the difference?

You need to indeed know you are right. This man knew he was right. I believe a part of reform is trying to make people more aware of what their rights are and what they are not.

If the arrest is indeed baseless as we see here you do have the right to resist. Not only do people need to know their rights, the police need to understand them and understand that repercussions for violating them will be swift.

you're saying that if a person believes that they are being arrested on baseless charges then they are entitled to resist arrest?

You know very well that isn't what I said. I said they need to know their rights.

So, what your are saying, in essence, is that anyone and everyone should be allowed to resist arrest?

When you are left with no valid argument, make one up.

and nobody is going to not know, right?

They absolutely will. Some will be wrong.

You just don't see the error in your reasoning do you?

There is no error in my reasoning. My reasoning is the law.

You want adjudication on the street. You may not think that's what you want, but that's what you're asking for.

"I didn't do it" is not an excuse to resist. Everybody believes they didn't do it. Didn't you see Shawshank Redemption?

Unless the police have a valid reason to suspect you, it is a valid excuse. Did you not read the link I posted more than once?

If that's the case that those who are "right" are entitled to resist arrest, who gets to decide if they are right, and when? What happens if it escalates to violence?

The police need to know the laws forward and backwards and never demand something they can not demand. Many times people ask for a higher up to come and de escalate a situation.

Why would the cops in my link decide they were going to arrest someone exercising their right?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The argument 9 times out of 10 is to just give in and take it up in court. No.

So, when a asks your name it is your opinion that you're not required to give it to him without reason. And, if the police officer tries to arrest you, you're within your rights to resist that arrest. Is that what you were saying?

In the example I posted the prosecutor said it was his right to not give his name. The law says it was his right.

"Generally, a person is under no obligation to identify themselves to police during a routine encounter,

Charges dropped against jogger who was arrested by San Antonio police

Does this bother you? So what I said is not simply an opinion. It's a fact and the law.

no. I agree with that and I'm glad for it.

What I'm saying is that just because you believe you are right, there in the moment, on the street, facing the cop, does not give you the right to resist arrest. Even if you believe the arrest is baseless, you still don't have the right to resist or run away, etc. You have to get your day in court, not on the street.

Do you see the difference?

You need to indeed know you are right. This man knew he was right. I believe a part of reform is trying to make people more aware of what their rights are and what they are not.

If the arrest is indeed baseless as we see here you do have the right to resist. Not only do people need to know their rights, the police need to understand them and understand that repercussions for violating them will be swift.

you're saying that if a person believes that they are being arrested on baseless charges then they are entitled to resist arrest?

You know very well that isn't what I said. I said they need to know their rights.

So, what your are saying, in essence, is that anyone and everyone should be allowed to resist arrest?

When you are left with no valid argument, make one up.

and nobody is going to not know, right?

They absolutely will. Some will be wrong.

You just don't see the error in your reasoning do you?

There is no error in my reasoning. My reasoning is the law.

You want adjudication on the street. You may not think that's what you want, but that's what you're asking for.

"I didn't do it" is not an excuse to resist. Everybody believes they didn't do it. Didn't you see Shawshank Redemption?

Unless the police have a valid reason to suspect you, it is a valid excuse. Did you not read the link I posted more than once?

If that's the case that those who are "right" are entitled to resist arrest, who gets to decide if they are right, and when? What happens if it escalates to violence?

The police need to know the laws forward and backwards and never demand something they can not demand. Many times people ask for a higher up to come and de escalate a situation.

Why would the cops in my link decide they were going to arrest someone exercising their right?

I think Post 53 makes my point better.

The only reason the guy in your link survived and walked away is because he stopped resisting at a certain point. He actually got arrested. The minor resisting of arrest was not chargeable because he had committed no crime to start with.

Had the guy in your link resisted to the point of violence and been shot and killed, is that murder on the part of the cops?

(Fair warning. This is a trap)

 

[pknopp]

The argument 9 times out of 10 is to just give in and take it up in court. No.

So, when a asks your name it is your opinion that you're not required to give it to him without reason. And, if the police officer tries to arrest you, you're within your rights to resist that arrest. Is that what you were saying?

In the example I posted the prosecutor said it was his right to not give his name. The law says it was his right.

"Generally, a person is under no obligation to identify themselves to police during a routine encounter,

Charges dropped against jogger who was arrested by San Antonio police

Does this bother you? So what I said is not simply an opinion. It's a fact and the law.

no. I agree with that and I'm glad for it.

What I'm saying is that just because you believe you are right, there in the moment, on the street, facing the cop, does not give you the right to resist arrest. Even if you believe the arrest is baseless, you still don't have the right to resist or run away, etc. You have to get your day in court, not on the street.

Do you see the difference?

You need to indeed know you are right. This man knew he was right. I believe a part of reform is trying to make people more aware of what their rights are and what they are not.

If the arrest is indeed baseless as we see here you do have the right to resist. Not only do people need to know their rights, the police need to understand them and understand that repercussions for violating them will be swift.

you're saying that if a person believes that they are being arrested on baseless charges then they are entitled to resist arrest?

You know very well that isn't what I said. I said they need to know their rights.

So, what your are saying, in essence, is that anyone and everyone should be allowed to resist arrest?

When you are left with no valid argument, make one up.

Let me ask it this way:

Say a police officer asked you to identify yourself for no reason. You tell the police officer to pound sand. The police officer says you're under arrest for failure to identify (which failure is not illegal). You say fuck no, I am not under arrest. The police officer attempts to arrest you by force. You resist.

How much resistance are you allowed to put up? To the point of violence? To the point of drawing a firearm? Shooting the cop? Jumping in the car and speeding away on the high-speed chase? Taking a hostage?

Hopefully now you see the problem?

The man in my article kicked the officers supposedly right? Did he get charged for that? In many of your examples you are citing the person committing other crimes. No they can't do that.

 

[pknopp]

The argument 9 times out of 10 is to just give in and take it up in court. No.

So, when a asks your name it is your opinion that you're not required to give it to him without reason. And, if the police officer tries to arrest you, you're within your rights to resist that arrest. Is that what you were saying?

In the example I posted the prosecutor said it was his right to not give his name. The law says it was his right.

"Generally, a person is under no obligation to identify themselves to police during a routine encounter,

Charges dropped against jogger who was arrested by San Antonio police

Does this bother you? So what I said is not simply an opinion. It's a fact and the law.

no. I agree with that and I'm glad for it.

What I'm saying is that just because you believe you are right, there in the moment, on the street, facing the cop, does not give you the right to resist arrest. Even if you believe the arrest is baseless, you still don't have the right to resist or run away, etc. You have to get your day in court, not on the street.

Do you see the difference?

You need to indeed know you are right. This man knew he was right. I believe a part of reform is trying to make people more aware of what their rights are and what they are not.

If the arrest is indeed baseless as we see here you do have the right to resist. Not only do people need to know their rights, the police need to understand them and understand that repercussions for violating them will be swift.

you're saying that if a person believes that they are being arrested on baseless charges then they are entitled to resist arrest?

You know very well that isn't what I said. I said they need to know their rights.

So, what your are saying, in essence, is that anyone and everyone should be allowed to resist arrest?

When you are left with no valid argument, make one up.

and nobody is going to not know, right?

They absolutely will. Some will be wrong.

You just don't see the error in your reasoning do you?

There is no error in my reasoning. My reasoning is the law.

You want adjudication on the street. You may not think that's what you want, but that's what you're asking for.

"I didn't do it" is not an excuse to resist. Everybody believes they didn't do it. Didn't you see Shawshank Redemption?

Unless the police have a valid reason to suspect you, it is a valid excuse. Did you not read the link I posted more than once?

If that's the case that those who are "right" are entitled to resist arrest, who gets to decide if they are right, and when? What happens if it escalates to violence?

The police need to know the laws forward and backwards and never demand something they can not demand. Many times people ask for a higher up to come and de escalate a situation.

Why would the cops in my link decide they were going to arrest someone exercising their right?

I think Post 53 makes my point better.

The only reason the guy in your link survived and walked away is because he stopped resisting at a certain point. He actually got arrested. The minor resisting of arrest was not chargeable because he had committed no crime.

Had the guy in your link resisted to the point of violence and been shot and killed, is that murder on the part of the cops?

(Fair warning. This is a trap)

Yes it's murder. Are the police always charged? No, that's why we have the protests.

Has it been the case that where you insist on protecting your civil rights that cops would often times kill you? Absolutely. That's why we are having protests.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The argument 9 times out of 10 is to just give in and take it up in court. No.

So, when a asks your name it is your opinion that you're not required to give it to him without reason. And, if the police officer tries to arrest you, you're within your rights to resist that arrest. Is that what you were saying?

In the example I posted the prosecutor said it was his right to not give his name. The law says it was his right.

"Generally, a person is under no obligation to identify themselves to police during a routine encounter,

Charges dropped against jogger who was arrested by San Antonio police

Does this bother you? So what I said is not simply an opinion. It's a fact and the law.

no. I agree with that and I'm glad for it.

What I'm saying is that just because you believe you are right, there in the moment, on the street, facing the cop, does not give you the right to resist arrest. Even if you believe the arrest is baseless, you still don't have the right to resist or run away, etc. You have to get your day in court, not on the street.

Do you see the difference?

You need to indeed know you are right. This man knew he was right. I believe a part of reform is trying to make people more aware of what their rights are and what they are not.

If the arrest is indeed baseless as we see here you do have the right to resist. Not only do people need to know their rights, the police need to understand them and understand that repercussions for violating them will be swift.

you're saying that if a person believes that they are being arrested on baseless charges then they are entitled to resist arrest?

You know very well that isn't what I said. I said they need to know their rights.

So, what your are saying, in essence, is that anyone and everyone should be allowed to resist arrest?

When you are left with no valid argument, make one up.

Let me ask it this way:

Say a police officer asked you to identify yourself for no reason. You tell the police officer to pound sand. The police officer says you're under arrest for failure to identify (which failure is not illegal). You say fuck no, I am not under arrest. The police officer attempts to arrest you by force. You resist.

How much resistance are you allowed to put up? To the point of violence? To the point of drawing a firearm? Shooting the cop? Jumping in the car and speeding away on the high-speed chase? Taking a hostage?

Hopefully now you see the problem?

The man in my article kicked the officers supposedly right? Did he get charged for that? In many of your examples you are citing the person committing other crimes. No they can't do that.

Yeah that's the point. What can I do? It's OK to kick an officer if you're being arrested for actions that are not illegal? Okay? Then what?

 

[pknopp]

The argument 9 times out of 10 is to just give in and take it up in court. No.

So, when a asks your name it is your opinion that you're not required to give it to him without reason. And, if the police officer tries to arrest you, you're within your rights to resist that arrest. Is that what you were saying?

In the example I posted the prosecutor said it was his right to not give his name. The law says it was his right.

"Generally, a person is under no obligation to identify themselves to police during a routine encounter,

Charges dropped against jogger who was arrested by San Antonio police

Does this bother you? So what I said is not simply an opinion. It's a fact and the law.

no. I agree with that and I'm glad for it.

What I'm saying is that just because you believe you are right, there in the moment, on the street, facing the cop, does not give you the right to resist arrest. Even if you believe the arrest is baseless, you still don't have the right to resist or run away, etc. You have to get your day in court, not on the street.

Do you see the difference?

You need to indeed know you are right. This man knew he was right. I believe a part of reform is trying to make people more aware of what their rights are and what they are not.

If the arrest is indeed baseless as we see here you do have the right to resist. Not only do people need to know their rights, the police need to understand them and understand that repercussions for violating them will be swift.

you're saying that if a person believes that they are being arrested on baseless charges then they are entitled to resist arrest?

You know very well that isn't what I said. I said they need to know their rights.

So, what your are saying, in essence, is that anyone and everyone should be allowed to resist arrest?

When you are left with no valid argument, make one up.

Let me ask it this way:

Say a police officer asked you to identify yourself for no reason. You tell the police officer to pound sand. The police officer says you're under arrest for failure to identify (which failure is not illegal). You say fuck no, I am not under arrest. The police officer attempts to arrest you by force. You resist.

How much resistance are you allowed to put up? To the point of violence? To the point of drawing a firearm? Shooting the cop? Jumping in the car and speeding away on the high-speed chase? Taking a hostage?

Hopefully now you see the problem?

The man in my article kicked the officers supposedly right? Did he get charged for that? In many of your examples you are citing the person committing other crimes. No they can't do that.

Yeah that's the point. What can I do? It's OK to kick an officer if you're being arrested for actions that are not illegal? Okay? Then what?

The point is that has to stop. How many times do I need to point this out? They had NO reason to arrest him.

Now do you want to make it a law that if a police officer violates your civil rights it's an automatic dismissal from the force? OK, but it also means stepping up taxes to pay for capable public defenders.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The argument 9 times out of 10 is to just give in and take it up in court. No.

So, when a asks your name it is your opinion that you're not required to give it to him without reason. And, if the police officer tries to arrest you, you're within your rights to resist that arrest. Is that what you were saying?

In the example I posted the prosecutor said it was his right to not give his name. The law says it was his right.

"Generally, a person is under no obligation to identify themselves to police during a routine encounter,

Charges dropped against jogger who was arrested by San Antonio police

Does this bother you? So what I said is not simply an opinion. It's a fact and the law.

no. I agree with that and I'm glad for it.

What I'm saying is that just because you believe you are right, there in the moment, on the street, facing the cop, does not give you the right to resist arrest. Even if you believe the arrest is baseless, you still don't have the right to resist or run away, etc. You have to get your day in court, not on the street.

Do you see the difference?

You need to indeed know you are right. This man knew he was right. I believe a part of reform is trying to make people more aware of what their rights are and what they are not.

If the arrest is indeed baseless as we see here you do have the right to resist. Not only do people need to know their rights, the police need to understand them and understand that repercussions for violating them will be swift.

you're saying that if a person believes that they are being arrested on baseless charges then they are entitled to resist arrest?

You know very well that isn't what I said. I said they need to know their rights.

So, what your are saying, in essence, is that anyone and everyone should be allowed to resist arrest?

When you are left with no valid argument, make one up.

and nobody is going to not know, right?

They absolutely will. Some will be wrong.

You just don't see the error in your reasoning do you?

There is no error in my reasoning. My reasoning is the law.

You want adjudication on the street. You may not think that's what you want, but that's what you're asking for.

"I didn't do it" is not an excuse to resist. Everybody believes they didn't do it. Didn't you see Shawshank Redemption?

Unless the police have a valid reason to suspect you, it is a valid excuse. Did you not read the link I posted more than once?

If that's the case that those who are "right" are entitled to resist arrest, who gets to decide if they are right, and when? What happens if it escalates to violence?

The police need to know the laws forward and backwards and never demand something they can not demand. Many times people ask for a higher up to come and de escalate a situation.

Why would the cops in my link decide they were going to arrest someone exercising their right?

I think Post 53 makes my point better.

The only reason the guy in your link survived and walked away is because he stopped resisting at a certain point. He actually got arrested. The minor resisting of arrest was not chargeable because he had committed no crime.

Had the guy in your link resisted to the point of violence and been shot and killed, is that murder on the part of the cops?

(Fair warning. This is a trap)

Yes it's murder. Are the police always charged? No, that's why we have the protests.

Has it been the case that where you insist on protecting your civil rights that cops would often times kill you? Absolutely. That's why we are having protests.

So, is it murder when a person resists the police officer making an arrest based on a mistake of law, when the one being arrested grabs an officer's taser and tried to use it on the officer and the officer fires in self-defense?

What about if it's a mistake in fact?

(Oh you're taking yourself down a terrible road.)