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

[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.

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?

You keep on making excuses for a police officer to not know the law. But I would say that is murder. The man acted in self defense and the cop killed him for it.

To use a real example..........

Suspended BPD Sergeant Ethan Newberg Indicted On 32 Counts For Allegedly Harassing Citizens

Why do you believe that the guy the officer assaulted should not be able to legally defend himself?

What about if it's a mistake in fact?

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

Not knowing the law is not an excuse for breaking it.

 

[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?

You keep on making excuses for a police officer to not know the law. But I would say that is murder. The man acted in self defense and the cop killed him for it.

To use a real example..........

Suspended BPD Sergeant Ethan Newberg Indicted On 32 Counts For Allegedly Harassing Citizens

Why do you believe that the guy the officer assaulted should not be able to legally defend himself?

What about if it's a mistake in fact?

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

Not knowing the law is not an excuse for breaking it.

Then, become a police officer and show us how it's done, or SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

 

[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.

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?

You keep on making excuses for a police officer to not know the law. But I would say that is murder. The man acted in self defense and the cop killed him for it.

To use a real example..........

Suspended BPD Sergeant Ethan Newberg Indicted On 32 Counts For Allegedly Harassing Citizens

Why do you believe that the guy the officer assaulted should not be able to legally defend himself?

What about if it's a mistake in fact?

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

Not knowing the law is not an excuse for breaking it.

Then, become a police officer and show us how it's done, or SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

Why shouldn't a police officer know the law?

I'm also still waiting on whatever you were setting me up for.

 

[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?

You keep on making excuses for a police officer to not know the law. But I would say that is murder. The man acted in self defense and the cop killed him for it.

To use a real example..........

Suspended BPD Sergeant Ethan Newberg Indicted On 32 Counts For Allegedly Harassing Citizens

Why do you believe that the guy the officer assaulted should not be able to legally defend himself?

What about if it's a mistake in fact?

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

Not knowing the law is not an excuse for breaking it.

Then, become a police officer and show us how it's done, or SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

Why shouldn't a police officer know the law?

I'm also still waiting on whatever you were setting me up for.

You demonstrated that you are a fucking tool.

You have set an impossible standard so as to cause a rookie cop to find himself being charged with FUCKING MURDER because some asshole decided to get justice on the street, instead of a court.

Anybody and everybody will resist under your bullshit standard. You haven't even accounted for law changes.

It is fucking idiotic.

 

[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.

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?

You keep on making excuses for a police officer to not know the law. But I would say that is murder. The man acted in self defense and the cop killed him for it.

To use a real example..........

Suspended BPD Sergeant Ethan Newberg Indicted On 32 Counts For Allegedly Harassing Citizens

Why do you believe that the guy the officer assaulted should not be able to legally defend himself?

What about if it's a mistake in fact?

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

Not knowing the law is not an excuse for breaking it.

Then, become a police officer and show us how it's done, or SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

Why shouldn't a police officer know the law?

I'm also still waiting on whatever you were setting me up for.

You demonstrated that you are a fucking tool.

You have set an impossible standard so as to cause a rookie cop to find himself being charged with FUCKING MURDER because some asshole decided to get justice on the street, instead of a court.

Anybody and everybody will resist under your bullshit standard. You haven't even accounted for law changes.

It is fucking idiotic.

Learning new laws is his job. When a law passes there are always time before it passes and when it goes into affect. There is no reason a police officer shouldn't be aware.

 

[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?

You keep on making excuses for a police officer to not know the law. But I would say that is murder. The man acted in self defense and the cop killed him for it.

To use a real example..........

Suspended BPD Sergeant Ethan Newberg Indicted On 32 Counts For Allegedly Harassing Citizens

Why do you believe that the guy the officer assaulted should not be able to legally defend himself?

What about if it's a mistake in fact?

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

Not knowing the law is not an excuse for breaking it.

Then, become a police officer and show us how it's done, or SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

Why shouldn't a police officer know the law?

I'm also still waiting on whatever you were setting me up for.

...and why is it such a burden to NOT FIGHT WITH THE COPS and instead, make your case in Court?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

 

[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.

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?

You keep on making excuses for a police officer to not know the law. But I would say that is murder. The man acted in self defense and the cop killed him for it.

To use a real example..........

Suspended BPD Sergeant Ethan Newberg Indicted On 32 Counts For Allegedly Harassing Citizens

Why do you believe that the guy the officer assaulted should not be able to legally defend himself?

What about if it's a mistake in fact?

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

Not knowing the law is not an excuse for breaking it.

Then, become a police officer and show us how it's done, or SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

Why shouldn't a police officer know the law?

I'm also still waiting on whatever you were setting me up for.

...and why is it such a burden to NOT FIGHT WITH THE COPS and instead, make your case in Court?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Poor people do not have the means to fight things out in the courts. Public defenders first move is to get you to plea to something. Do you know how many places fund a P.D. office? With fines paid in courts so the office has an interest to get you to plead to something.

I should not have to spend thousands of dollars to defend myself against bogus charges either.

 

[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?

You keep on making excuses for a police officer to not know the law. But I would say that is murder. The man acted in self defense and the cop killed him for it.

To use a real example..........

Suspended BPD Sergeant Ethan Newberg Indicted On 32 Counts For Allegedly Harassing Citizens

Why do you believe that the guy the officer assaulted should not be able to legally defend himself?

What about if it's a mistake in fact?

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

Not knowing the law is not an excuse for breaking it.

Then, become a police officer and show us how it's done, or SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

Why shouldn't a police officer know the law?

I'm also still waiting on whatever you were setting me up for.

You demonstrated that you are a fucking tool.

You have set an impossible standard so as to cause a rookie cop to find himself being charged with FUCKING MURDER because some asshole decided to get justice on the street, instead of a court.

Anybody and everybody will resist under your bullshit standard. You haven't even accounted for law changes.

It is fucking idiotic.

Learning new laws is his job. When a law passes there are always time before it passes and when it goes into affect. There is no reason a police officer shouldn't be aware.

Of course they need to know the law.

YOU WOULD BE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO RESIST ALL THE FUCKING TIME AND SOME TO GET KILLED!!!

Wouldn't it be much easier for people to....I don't know......NOT FIGHT WITH COPS....even when the cops are wrong AND FUCKING LIVE TO TELL ABOUT IT. That's not the place to get fucking justice. Those who try that ARE FUCKING IDIOTS WHO DESERVE THE RESULTS OF THEIR STUPIDITY!!!

NO IT IS NOT FUCKING MURDER YOU MORON! They are acting to arrest, not kill. The asshole resisting is the one at fault. GET THAT THROUGH YOU R FUCKING SKULL.

Maybe you should pull that shit with a cop and get your ass smoked so you can claim VICTORY from the grave if the cop is eventually convicted of murder, like you wish.

 

[freyasman]

I watched the full video. *Warning* it is graphic, showing loss of life, not appropriate for the workplace. It was professionally and objectively presented, the case is still under investigation obviously.

The man clearly had a gun. This is a justified shooting, little doubt in my mind about that. I was even critical enough to watch the video again, at HD, at 1/4th speed, no sound, full screen. Appears he probably tried to throw the gun, who knows, but he had it in his hand and running behind the officer at an angle.

There is a time in which police brutality does occur, this is NOT such an incident and it was wise for the police department to release the video. The cop didn't even shoot him multiple time. One shot is all he took. This cop probably isn't trigger happy if I were to guess.

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

Question;
Who is Deon Kay and why should I care?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Poor people do not have the means to fight things out in the courts.

That is the WORST EXCUSE FUCKING EVER!!!

You believe poor people have the right to fight it out right there with the cop because a public defender (who is free) won't be good enough?

JESUS, you are a fucking anarchist.

 

[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.

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?

You keep on making excuses for a police officer to not know the law. But I would say that is murder. The man acted in self defense and the cop killed him for it.

To use a real example..........

Suspended BPD Sergeant Ethan Newberg Indicted On 32 Counts For Allegedly Harassing Citizens

Why do you believe that the guy the officer assaulted should not be able to legally defend himself?

What about if it's a mistake in fact?

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

Not knowing the law is not an excuse for breaking it.

Then, become a police officer and show us how it's done, or SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

Why shouldn't a police officer know the law?

I'm also still waiting on whatever you were setting me up for.

You demonstrated that you are a fucking tool.

You have set an impossible standard so as to cause a rookie cop to find himself being charged with FUCKING MURDER because some asshole decided to get justice on the street, instead of a court.

Anybody and everybody will resist under your bullshit standard. You haven't even accounted for law changes.

It is fucking idiotic.

Learning new laws is his job. When a law passes there are always time before it passes and when it goes into affect. There is no reason a police officer shouldn't be aware.

Of course they need to know the law.

YOU WOULD BE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO RESIST ALL THE FUCKING TIME AND SOME TO GET KILLED!!!

I have no desire to continue when you resort to making things up and then arguing that.

 

[pknopp]

Poor people do not have the means to fight things out in the courts.

That is the WORST EXCUSE FUCKING EVER!!!

You believe poor people have the right to fight it out right there with the cop because a public defender (who is free) won't be good enough?

JESUS, you are a fucking anarchist.

Yes, anarchism is looking better every day. We could reform our corrupt justice system instead. I have no idea why you would be against that.

 

[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?

You keep on making excuses for a police officer to not know the law. But I would say that is murder. The man acted in self defense and the cop killed him for it.

To use a real example..........

Suspended BPD Sergeant Ethan Newberg Indicted On 32 Counts For Allegedly Harassing Citizens

Why do you believe that the guy the officer assaulted should not be able to legally defend himself?

What about if it's a mistake in fact?

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

Not knowing the law is not an excuse for breaking it.

Then, become a police officer and show us how it's done, or SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

Why shouldn't a police officer know the law?

I'm also still waiting on whatever you were setting me up for.

You demonstrated that you are a fucking tool.

You have set an impossible standard so as to cause a rookie cop to find himself being charged with FUCKING MURDER because some asshole decided to get justice on the street, instead of a court.

Anybody and everybody will resist under your bullshit standard. You haven't even accounted for law changes.

It is fucking idiotic.

Learning new laws is his job. When a law passes there are always time before it passes and when it goes into affect. There is no reason a police officer shouldn't be aware.

Of course they need to know the law.

YOU WOULD BE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO RESIST ALL THE FUCKING TIME AND SOME TO GET KILLED!!!

I have no desire to continue when you resort to making things up and then arguing that.

When a lawyer is free, poverty is no excuse for trying to kill a police officer. That ain't justice. Never will be.

If you want that type of standard where poor people have the right to resist solely because they are poor, the let's just go with no cops AND GIVE ME MY FUCKING MACHINE GUN.

 

[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.

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?

You keep on making excuses for a police officer to not know the law. But I would say that is murder. The man acted in self defense and the cop killed him for it.

To use a real example..........

Suspended BPD Sergeant Ethan Newberg Indicted On 32 Counts For Allegedly Harassing Citizens

Why do you believe that the guy the officer assaulted should not be able to legally defend himself?

What about if it's a mistake in fact?

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

Not knowing the law is not an excuse for breaking it.

Then, become a police officer and show us how it's done, or SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

Why shouldn't a police officer know the law?

I'm also still waiting on whatever you were setting me up for.

You demonstrated that you are a fucking tool.

You have set an impossible standard so as to cause a rookie cop to find himself being charged with FUCKING MURDER because some asshole decided to get justice on the street, instead of a court.

Anybody and everybody will resist under your bullshit standard. You haven't even accounted for law changes.

It is fucking idiotic.

Learning new laws is his job. When a law passes there are always time before it passes and when it goes into affect. There is no reason a police officer shouldn't be aware.

Of course they need to know the law.

YOU WOULD BE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO RESIST ALL THE FUCKING TIME AND SOME TO GET KILLED!!!

I have no desire to continue when you resort to making things up and then arguing that.

When a lawyer is free, poverty is no excuse for trying to kill a police officer. That ain't justice. Never will be.

If you want that type of standard where poor people have the right to resist solely because they are poor, the let's just go with no cops AND GIVE ME MY FUCKING MACHINE GUN.

Ditto what I said in my previous post.

 

[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?

You keep on making excuses for a police officer to not know the law. But I would say that is murder. The man acted in self defense and the cop killed him for it.

To use a real example..........

Suspended BPD Sergeant Ethan Newberg Indicted On 32 Counts For Allegedly Harassing Citizens

Why do you believe that the guy the officer assaulted should not be able to legally defend himself?

What about if it's a mistake in fact?

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

Not knowing the law is not an excuse for breaking it.

Then, become a police officer and show us how it's done, or SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

Why shouldn't a police officer know the law?

I'm also still waiting on whatever you were setting me up for.

You demonstrated that you are a fucking tool.

You have set an impossible standard so as to cause a rookie cop to find himself being charged with FUCKING MURDER because some asshole decided to get justice on the street, instead of a court.

Anybody and everybody will resist under your bullshit standard. You haven't even accounted for law changes.

It is fucking idiotic.

Learning new laws is his job. When a law passes there are always time before it passes and when it goes into affect. There is no reason a police officer shouldn't be aware.

Of course they need to know the law.

YOU WOULD BE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO RESIST ALL THE FUCKING TIME AND SOME TO GET KILLED!!!

I have no desire to continue when you resort to making things up and then arguing that.

When a lawyer is free, poverty is no excuse for trying to kill a police officer. That ain't justice. Never will be.

If you want that type of standard where poor people have the right to resist solely because they are poor, the let's just go with no cops AND GIVE ME MY FUCKING MACHINE GUN.

Ditto what I said in my previous post.

Are you familiar with the term "cooling effect?"

 

[Quasar44]

I watched the full video. *Warning* it is graphic, showing loss of life, not appropriate for the workplace. It was professionally and objectively presented, the case is still under investigation obviously.

The man clearly had a gun. This is a justified shooting, little doubt in my mind about that. I was even critical enough to watch the video again, at HD, at 1/4th speed, no sound, full screen. Appears he probably tried to throw the gun, who knows, but he had it in his hand and running behind the officer at an angle.

There is a time in which police brutality does occur, this is NOT such an incident and it was wise for the police department to release the video. The cop didn't even shoot him multiple time. One shot is all he took. This cop probably isn't trigger happy if I were to guess.

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

Glad the thug is dead and the brave cop is safe
What a job !!

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

It’s a ghetto. My wife’s office was about few blocks away on the MD side in PG County. 2 young girls pushing a stroller crossed her parking lot as she left work. The next day she discovered her colleague was carjacked at gunpoint five minutes later by the girls who had hid their weapon
In the stroller.
It’s a ghetto.