Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-05-2015, 11:38 AM
jms62's Avatar
jms62 jms62 is offline
Saratoga
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,796
Default This is seriously troubling

http://www.buzzfeed.com/nicolasmedin...e-a#.hrNgNgygV


1. Resisting arrest is whatever the cops want it to be
2. Having to defend yourself against a felony would be an expensive nightmare
3. Conviction on a felony opens up a whole other realm of nightmares for the rest of your life (Obtaining a Job, Guns, Voting)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-05-2015, 12:09 PM
ateamstupid's Avatar
ateamstupid ateamstupid is offline
Super Mod.. and Super Fly
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 13,036
Default

Don't tell that to the "Libertarians" on here who suddenly morph into big government shills whenever cops are involved.

First the NYPD cops with machine guns who are assigned to counter-terrorism/protest handling, as if those two are comparable, now this. This is going to get ugly.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-05-2015, 01:20 PM
Rupert Pupkin Rupert Pupkin is offline
Del Mar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,102
Default

This is outrageous. I can't believe they want harsher penalties for people who assault police officers. If I am at a rally or protest, I should be allowed to assault a police officer without fear of being charged with a felony.

Nowhere in the article did it say anything about the definition of resisting arrest being changed. Nice way to totally mischaracterize the facts. If you are at a protest and you lay down and let your body go limp, that is not resisting arrest. If you strike an officer, that is resisting arrest. I don't think there is too much confusion there.

I am not a person who think cops can do no wrong. If there is misconduct on the part of a policeman, he needs to be held accountable. I think police should actually be held to an even higher standard than civilians. That being said, I'm not going to second-guess every split second decision a police officer makes. I will give them the benefit of the doubt on a close call. But there are plenty of times where there is misconduct where it is not a close call. In those cases, I will be the first person to call for the officer to be fired and maybe even charged with a crime if applicable.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-05-2015, 01:50 PM
jms62's Avatar
jms62 jms62 is offline
Saratoga
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin View Post
This is outrageous. I can't believe they want harsher penalties for people who assault police officers. If I am at a rally or protest, I should be allowed to assault a police officer without fear of being charged with a felony.

Nowhere in the article did it say anything about the definition of resisting arrest being changed. Nice way to totally mischaracterize the facts. If you are at a protest and you lay down and let your body go limp, that is not resisting arrest. If you strike an officer, that is resisting arrest. I don't think there is too much confusion there.

I am not a person who think cops can do no wrong. If there is misconduct on the part of a policeman, he needs to be held accountable. I think police should actually be held to an even higher standard than civilians. That being said, I'm not going to second-guess every split second decision a police officer makes. I will give them the benefit of the doubt on a close call. But there are plenty of times where there is misconduct where it is not a close call. In those cases, I will be the first person to call for the officer to be fired and maybe even charged with a crime if applicable.

I just love it when you rail against a point that wasn't made.
If you assaulted a police officer you would be charged with ASSAULT Rupe. ASSUALT <> Resisting Arrest. Ateam NAILED IT. Resisting arrest is basically anything the cops want it to be. You mouth off to them and they rough you up well you were resisting arrest. Why were they trying to arrest you in the first place? Try the catch all "impeding pedestrian traffic" which again is anything they want it to be.

http://www.thefutureorganization.com...inking-cap.gif

Last edited by jms62 : 02-05-2015 at 02:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-05-2015, 02:30 PM
Rupert Pupkin Rupert Pupkin is offline
Del Mar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jms62 View Post

I just love it when you rail against a point that wasn't made.
If you assaulted a police officer you would be charged with ASSAULT Rupe. ASSUALT <> Resisting Arrest. Ateam NAILED IT. Resisting arrest is basically anything the cops want it to be. You mouth off to them and they rough you up well you were resisting arrest. Why were they trying to arrest you in the first place? Try the catch all "impeding pedestrian traffic" which again is anything they want it to be.

http://www.thefutureorganization.com...inking-cap.gif
I will quote from the article. It says, "Police Commissioner Bill Bratton and top union official Pat Lynch called for harsher penalties for people who resist arrest and assault cops at public assemblies."

My take on the article was obviously different from your take. I don't think there is any confusion about what the definition is of "resisting arrest". When you are placed under arrest, if you put up a physical fight, that is "resisting arrest". It would probably be "assaulting a police officer" too. I don't know for sure. I'm not a lawyer.

Anyway, I don't think they're looking to charge people with any type of "resisting arrest", let alone "felony resisting arrest", for simple civil disobedience. What they want to address is the people who were physically fighting with the officers when they were being arrested. There was way too much of that going on during the recent protests.

With regard to people blocking traffic (whether pedestrian traffic or automobile traffic), there is no excuse for that. I would love to see how sympathetic you would be if you were stuck in your car, not moving for 2 hours, because some idiots were laying in the street, protesting. In that situation I bet you would be the first person to want those people arrested. When the police order people to disperse, they need to disperse. If they want to file a complaint later on, that is their right. As big of jerks as cops can be sometimes, I will still follow their order, if they give me an order. I may question it, but if they get belligerent, I'm going to comply. If I don't like it, I will complain later. How can we have a civil society if people think they can just ignore police orders? In a civilized society, we have to respect the authority of the police. If they misbehave, we can file a complaint, we can contact our city leaders, etc. But in the heat of a civil disturbance, we need to comply with police orders, unless we want to live in anarchy.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-05-2015, 02:39 PM
jms62's Avatar
jms62 jms62 is offline
Saratoga
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin View Post
I will quote from the article. It says, "Police Commissioner Bill Bratton and top union official Pat Lynch called for harsher penalties for people who resist arrest and assault cops at public assemblies."

My take on the article was obviously different from your take. I don't think there is any confusion about what the definition is of "resisting arrest". When you are placed under arrest, if you put up a physical fight, that is "resisting arrest". It would probably be "assaulting a police officer" too. I don't know for sure. I'm not a lawyer.

Anyway, I don't think they're looking to charge people with any type of "resisting arrest", let alone "felony resisting arrest", for simple civil disobedience. What they want to address is the people who were physically fighting with the officers when they were being arrested. There was way too much of that going on during the recent protests.

With regard to people blocking traffic (whether pedestrian traffic or automobile traffic), there is no excuse for that. I would love to see how sympathetic you would be if you were stuck in your car, not moving for 2 hours, because some idiots were laying in the street, protesting. In that situation I bet you would be the first person to want those people arrested. When the police order people to disperse, they need to disperse. If they want to file a complaint later on, that is their right. As big of jerks as cops can be sometimes, I will still follow their order, if they give me an order. I may question it, but if they get belligerent, I'm going to comply. If I don't like it, I will complain later. How can we have a civil society if people think they can just ignore police orders? In a civilized society, we have to respect the authority of the police. If they misbehave, we can file a complaint, we can contact our city leaders, etc. But in the heat of a civil disturbance, we need to comply with police orders, unless we want to live in anarchy.
BUT THEY CAN IF THE LAW IS CHANGED.

And then you have to DEFEND yourself against a FELONY which if convicted of will change your life forever in a negative way. If Obama proposed such a law you would be the first one POUNDING the TABLE screaming about loss of civil rights and us as a country moving closer to a Police state.

Last edited by jms62 : 02-05-2015 at 02:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-05-2015, 05:56 PM
Danzig Danzig is offline
Dee Tee Stables
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: The Natural State
Posts: 29,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jms62 View Post
http://www.buzzfeed.com/nicolasmedin...e-a#.hrNgNgygV


1. Resisting arrest is whatever the cops want it to be
2. Having to defend yourself against a felony would be an expensive nightmare
3. Conviction on a felony opens up a whole other realm of nightmares for the rest of your life (Obtaining a Job, Guns, Voting)
Scary. To read things like this, you would think crime is higher than ever, when it is actually the opposite. The first thing that leapt to my mind was the pic of the cop spraying sitting, orderly protesters in the façe with pepper spray.
And sure....have cops investigate cops instead of indies..its worked great up til now.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all.
Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.