Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
it is a crime to resist arrest
thus it is not your right
No, Dive it is a crime to resist a lawful arrest. It is not a crime to resist an unlawful arrest. I have been through it and I know first hand. It is your Fourth Amendment right to resist an unlawful arrest.
Spirit of the law verses letter of the law.
Resisting arrest can be done within legal confines, thus why you are allowed the "one phone call" ... however, once you violently resist you are breaking more laws and instantly become a criminal, if you evade the law there is another set of laws being broken which again makes you a criminal instantly. Use your one phone call wisely and you can resist arrest legally.
thank you
You're both wrong. Absolutely and on a very fundamental level.
The US Government is not the sole provider of free speech. They are only one of many that PROTECT free speech.
Kitten, you're trolling for a fight too because you got your ass handed to you again.
You agree that we do enjoy a lot of freedom of speech here, at the pleasure of the owners. Then you try to place the sole authority to freedom of speech with the government. You are absolutely wrong. They merely insure it, they don't own, didn't invent it and are not the only people who insure it.
You somehow whole heartedly believe that the governments rules on speech are indeed "freedom of speech" but the admittedly loose regulations, lawfully imposed by this board are not priviledges to free speech.
Completely understandable, knowing your weak mindset. You have already surrendered your personal freedoms to others. You reatain no authority over yourself. You give it up to anyone. Your just a fearful type. And that's OK. But I am not. My freedom to speak here is not influenced by your fear. The regualtions are clear, my positions are well articulated and supported. My speech practically frees itself.
But hey, if you need that feeling of authority over you to keep yourself in check, that's all good. Some of us have the composure to use our freedom responsibly.
You are an idiot, really, learn more about the laws you voted for.
you might not be found guilty of it if you were arrested unlawfully, but it is still a crimeit is a crime to resist arrest
thus it is not your right
No, Dive it is a crime to resist a lawful arrest. It is not a crime to resist an unlawful arrest. I have been through it and I know first hand. It is your Fourth Amendment right to resist an unlawful arrest.
it is a crime to resist arrest
thus it is not your right
No, Dive it is a crime to resist a lawful arrest. It is not a crime to resist an unlawful arrest. I have been through it and I know first hand. It is your Fourth Amendment right to resist an unlawful arrest.
Spirit of the law verses letter of the law.
Resisting arrest can be done within legal confines, thus why you are allowed the "one phone call" ... however, once you violently resist you are breaking more laws and instantly become a criminal, if you evade the law there is another set of laws being broken which again makes you a criminal instantly. Use your one phone call wisely and you can resist arrest legally.
You're both wrong. Absolutely and on a very fundamental level.
The US Government is not the sole provider of free speech. They are only one of many that PROTECT free speech.
Kitten, you're trolling for a fight too because you got your ass handed to you again.
You agree that we do enjoy a lot of freedom of speech here, at the pleasure of the owners. Then you try to place the sole authority to freedom of speech with the government. You are absolutely wrong. They merely insure it, they don't own, didn't invent it and are not the only people who insure it.
You somehow whole heartedly believe that the governments rules on speech are indeed "freedom of speech" but the admittedly loose regulations, lawfully imposed by this board are not priviledges to free speech.
Completely understandable, knowing your weak mindset. You have already surrendered your personal freedoms to others. You reatain no authority over yourself. You give it up to anyone. Your just a fearful type. And that's OK. But I am not. My freedom to speak here is not influenced by your fear. The regualtions are clear, my positions are well articulated and supported. My speech practically frees itself.
But hey, if you need that feeling of authority over you to keep yourself in check, that's all good. Some of us have the composure to use our freedom responsibly.
You DID NOT just imply that you voted for your First Amendment right...did you?
You're both wrong. Absolutely and on a very fundamental level.
The US Government is not the sole provider of free speech. They are only one of many that PROTECT free speech.
Kitten, you're trolling for a fight too because you got your ass handed to you again.
You agree that we do enjoy a lot of freedom of speech here, at the pleasure of the owners. Then you try to place the sole authority to freedom of speech with the government. You are absolutely wrong. They merely insure it, they don't own, didn't invent it and are not the only people who insure it.
You somehow whole heartedly believe that the governments rules on speech are indeed "freedom of speech" but the admittedly loose regulations, lawfully imposed by this board are not priviledges to free speech.
Completely understandable, knowing your weak mindset. You have already surrendered your personal freedoms to others. You reatain no authority over yourself. You give it up to anyone. Your just a fearful type. And that's OK. But I am not. My freedom to speak here is not influenced by your fear. The regualtions are clear, my positions are well articulated and supported. My speech practically frees itself.
But hey, if you need that feeling of authority over you to keep yourself in check, that's all good. Some of us have the composure to use our freedom responsibly.
You DID NOT just imply that you voted for your First Amendment right...did you?
You DID NOT just imply that you voted for your First Amendment right...did you?
No, it was a general suggestion, since SW clearly knows so little about every law it's sad.
You DID NOT just imply that you voted for your First Amendment right...did you?
No, it was a general suggestion, since SW clearly knows so little about every law it's sad.
Kitty, please do be specific. These vague accusations make you look weak.
In specific, what law have I demonstrated ignorance of?
No, it was a general suggestion, since SW clearly knows so little about every law it's sad.
Kitty, please do be specific. These vague accusations make you look weak.
In specific, what law have I demonstrated ignorance of?
Vague, you have been wrong about every single law you mentioned ... how much more specific can I get other than learn about the laws before you try to debate them.
Start with the freedom of speech, then work your way toward your local traffic laws, that's as specific as I can get since you clearly know none of them.
No, it was a general suggestion, since SW clearly knows so little about every law it's sad.
Kitty, please do be specific. These vague accusations make you look weak.
In specific, what law have I demonstrated ignorance of?
Vague, you have been wrong about every single law you mentioned ... how much more specific can I get other than learn about the laws before you try to debate them.
Start with the freedom of speech, then work your way toward your local traffic laws, that's as specific as I can get since you clearly know none of them.
Kitty, please do be specific. These vague accusations make you look weak.
In specific, what law have I demonstrated ignorance of?
Vague, you have been wrong about every single law you mentioned ... how much more specific can I get other than learn about the laws before you try to debate them.
Start with the freedom of speech, then work your way toward your local traffic laws, that's as specific as I can get since you clearly know none of them.
Ok. We'll start with Freedom of Speech.
The Government ensures my right to the level of speech deemed acceptable to the people of th United States of America.
The US Message Board extends the priviledge of speech to me at a level acceptable to the US Message board.
You are sorely confused that there is any actual law regarding some all encompassing freedom of speech. You begin from a flawed premise.
We are free to speak here. Permitted by the US Message Board, by their legal right to do so. They are legally permitted to grant me freedom of speech here. To start from the position that there is no freedom of speech is as backwards and ignorant as one can get. This message board, as do most, begins with the premise of SPEECH. You understand that we are supposed to speak here? The rules are few and lightly enforced. This board promotes speech, it does not set out to stiffle it.
You are on the wrong side of over 200 years of American speech. You are the threat to our foundation.
you vote on them when you vote on the representationKitty, please do be specific. These vague accusations make you look weak.
In specific, what law have I demonstrated ignorance of?
Vague, you have been wrong about every single law you mentioned ... how much more specific can I get other than learn about the laws before you try to debate them.
Start with the freedom of speech, then work your way toward your local traffic laws, that's as specific as I can get since you clearly know none of them.
KK, give it up...really. I mean it takes two freaking seconds to Google. SW has been correct on the laws...you have not. All you have to do is read summaries of the hundreds of court cases concerning Federal Statutes. Don't guess the answers, just look them up or say that you don't know. It looks so much better than getting smacked around like a Rocky King v. Rick Flair.
NOBODY FUCKING VOTES ON LOCAL TRAFFIC LAWS. Didn't you say that you don't drive or have a license? Why the hell would you be voting on traffic laws? Please let it go for your own sake. This is getting bad for you.
exactlyVague, you have been wrong about every single law you mentioned ... how much more specific can I get other than learn about the laws before you try to debate them.
Start with the freedom of speech, then work your way toward your local traffic laws, that's as specific as I can get since you clearly know none of them.
Ok. We'll start with Freedom of Speech.
The Government ensures my right to the level of speech deemed acceptable to the people of th United States of America.
The US Message Board extends the priviledge of speech to me at a level acceptable to the US Message board.
You are sorely confused that there is any actual law regarding some all encompassing freedom of speech. You begin from a flawed premise.
We are free to speak here. Permitted by the US Message Board, by their legal right to do so. They are legally permitted to grant me freedom of speech here. To start from the position that there is no freedom of speech is as backwards and ignorant as one can get. This message board, as do most, begins with the premise of SPEECH. You understand that we are supposed to speak here? The rules are few and lightly enforced. This board promotes speech, it does not set out to stiffle it.
You are on the wrong side of over 200 years of American speech. You are the threat to our foundation.
Try this, go into a business and call the owner a "fucking retard" ... then you will see that freedom of speech does not extend into privately owned and operated institutions/businesses/etc., period.
Vague, you have been wrong about every single law you mentioned ... how much more specific can I get other than learn about the laws before you try to debate them.
Start with the freedom of speech, then work your way toward your local traffic laws, that's as specific as I can get since you clearly know none of them.
Ok. We'll start with Freedom of Speech.
The Government ensures my right to the level of speech deemed acceptable to the people of th United States of America.
The US Message Board extends the priviledge of speech to me at a level acceptable to the US Message board.
You are sorely confused that there is any actual law regarding some all encompassing freedom of speech. You begin from a flawed premise.
We are free to speak here. Permitted by the US Message Board, by their legal right to do so. They are legally permitted to grant me freedom of speech here. To start from the position that there is no freedom of speech is as backwards and ignorant as one can get. This message board, as do most, begins with the premise of SPEECH. You understand that we are supposed to speak here? The rules are few and lightly enforced. This board promotes speech, it does not set out to stiffle it.
You are on the wrong side of over 200 years of American speech. You are the threat to our foundation.
Try this, go into a business and call the owner a "fucking retard" ... then you will see that freedom of speech does not extend into privately owned and operated institutions/businesses/etc., period.
Kitty, please do be specific. These vague accusations make you look weak.
In specific, what law have I demonstrated ignorance of?
Vague, you have been wrong about every single law you mentioned ... how much more specific can I get other than learn about the laws before you try to debate them.
Start with the freedom of speech, then work your way toward your local traffic laws, that's as specific as I can get since you clearly know none of them.
KK, give it up...really. I mean it takes two freaking seconds to Google. SW has been correct on the laws...you have not. All you have to do is read summaries of the hundreds of court cases concerning Federal Statutes. Don't guess the answers, just look them up or say that you don't know. It looks so much better than getting smacked around like a Rocky King v. Rick Flair.
NOBODY FUCKING VOTES ON LOCAL TRAFFIC LAWS. Didn't you say that you don't drive or have a license? Why the hell would you be voting on traffic laws? Please let it go for your own sake. This is getting bad for you.
Texas Transportation Code - Section 542.005. Rules On Private Property - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws§ 542.005. RULES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. This subtitle does
not prevent an owner of private property that is a private road
from:
(1) regulating or prohibiting use of the property by
the public for vehicular travel; or
(2) requiring conditions different from or in addition
to those specified by this subtitle.
HowStuffWorks "How Traffic Tickets Work"Generally traffic law is broken up into infractions and violations. An infraction is an offense that is not considered a crime and its penalty is a fine. A person who is guilty of an infraction cant be jailed, receive large fines, have a jury trial or a court-appointed lawyer. Most traffic tickets, such as non-moving violations and non-dangerous moving violations, are infractions. Some speeding tickets can still be relatively large, as many states determine the fine based on how many miles per hour beyond the speed limit the offender was driving.
Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful ArrestAn illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery. (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified. Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence. Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
he could file, but more than likely it would get laughed out of courtOk. We'll start with Freedom of Speech.
The Government ensures my right to the level of speech deemed acceptable to the people of th United States of America.
The US Message Board extends the priviledge of speech to me at a level acceptable to the US Message board.
You are sorely confused that there is any actual law regarding some all encompassing freedom of speech. You begin from a flawed premise.
We are free to speak here. Permitted by the US Message Board, by their legal right to do so. They are legally permitted to grant me freedom of speech here. To start from the position that there is no freedom of speech is as backwards and ignorant as one can get. This message board, as do most, begins with the premise of SPEECH. You understand that we are supposed to speak here? The rules are few and lightly enforced. This board promotes speech, it does not set out to stiffle it.
You are on the wrong side of over 200 years of American speech. You are the threat to our foundation.
Try this, go into a business and call the owner a "fucking retard" ... then you will see that freedom of speech does not extend into privately owned and operated institutions/businesses/etc., period.
Ahhh, but can he be arrested and charged with a crime? Can he file a lawsuit citing his First Amendment rights?
there was no illegal arrestLet's summarize this beginners lesson in law.
Texas code regarding traffic code enforcement on private property:
Texas Transportation Code - Section 542.005. Rules On Private Property - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws§ 542.005. RULES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. This subtitle does
not prevent an owner of private property that is a private road
from:
(1) regulating or prohibiting use of the property by
the public for vehicular travel; or
(2) requiring conditions different from or in addition
to those specified by this subtitle.
Here is a nice summary of why Kitty and Dive are wrong about traffic violators being criminals. Simple traffic code violations ARE NOT CRIMES. Check your state and local regs to see the seperation of traffic code from criminal code.
HowStuffWorks "How Traffic Tickets Work"Generally traffic law is broken up into infractions and violations. An infraction is an offense that is not considered a crime and its penalty is a fine. A person who is guilty of an infraction cant be jailed, receive large fines, have a jury trial or a court-appointed lawyer. Most traffic tickets, such as non-moving violations and non-dangerous moving violations, are infractions. Some speeding tickets can still be relatively large, as many states determine the fine based on how many miles per hour beyond the speed limit the offender was driving.
Here is a great page with numerous laws and decisions that demostrate the lawfullness of resisting an unlawful arrest.
Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful ArrestAn illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery. (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified. Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence. Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
Neither Dive nor Kitty can support their positions, or refuse to. Neither can they refute the supported facts of law, as presented, with complete support.
They entered this argument with the same old "Cops are always right. The law says cops are always right." imaginary law.
Where is your law Kitty? Where is the "cops are always right and immune to the law" Law? Where is it Kitty? Only in your scared little head?
there was no illegal arrestLet's summarize this beginners lesson in law.
Texas code regarding traffic code enforcement on private property:
Texas Transportation Code - Section 542.005. Rules On Private Property - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws§ 542.005. RULES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. This subtitle does
not prevent an owner of private property that is a private road
from:
(1) regulating or prohibiting use of the property by
the public for vehicular travel; or
(2) requiring conditions different from or in addition
to those specified by this subtitle.
Here is a nice summary of why Kitty and Dive are wrong about traffic violators being criminals. Simple traffic code violations ARE NOT CRIMES. Check your state and local regs to see the seperation of traffic code from criminal code.
HowStuffWorks "How Traffic Tickets Work"
Here is a great page with numerous laws and decisions that demostrate the lawfullness of resisting an unlawful arrest.
Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful ArrestAn illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery. (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified. Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence. Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
Neither Dive nor Kitty can support their positions, or refuse to. Neither can they refute the supported facts of law, as presented, with complete support.
They entered this argument with the same old "Cops are always right. The law says cops are always right." imaginary law.
Where is your law Kitty? Where is the "cops are always right and immune to the law" Law? Where is it Kitty? Only in your scared little head?
he was doing it as part of a traffic stop
