Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dramatic as your post may be, you and many of your fellow supporters of OWS criminal behavior fail to grasp that there is no Constitutional protection of criminal activity.
Just drop the whole "I'm concerned about the Constitutional rights of my fellow citizens" mask and admit you think the law only applies to those with whom you disagree.
They can't. Their fearless leader has backed them so now they're all in or they have to eat the egg that's on their faces.
This would be hilariously laugh-inducing except for the fact that you claim to be a (former?) law enforcement officer.
Darling, you know damn good and well that that cop had no legal right to indiscriminately pepper spray those kids. None. Several of the cops started to remove the kids by their arms and after the tiniest of tugs backed away with no further effort so that the bully could step across the kids and just willy-nilly spray them at point blank range. Several of the kids had the pepper spray canister shoved into their mouths and sprayed down their throats. Just stop defending this clear abuse of power. It's getting ridiculous already. My understanding and comprehension of the law is perfectly fine, thank you. Yours, however, is not. You can quote me all the definitions you want, stating that police are allowed to use force. I have never disputed this, nor would I. But they are not allowed to use force however and whenever they please. I have actual case law that is on point from the very state where this incident occurred that supports my position that in this circumstance the force was excessive. You do not.
And since the rest of your post is just more of the same that I've already debunked or answered, I'm not going to further waste my time on the minutia. You don't read well. I didn't ignore any alleged criminal violations. In fact, I specifically acknowledged that the students in this instance may very well have been breaking a law or two.
But the fact that someone is breaking a law doesn't all of a sudden give police carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want to stop it.
I'm not being ignorant by any definition. You, however, are willfully lying about how far police authority stretches.
We'll do this one more time, in your language.
Quote:
102.16 Failure to Comply with Directions of Official, or Resisting or Obstructing Official. Failure to identify oneself to, or comply with the directions of, a University official or other public official acting in the performance of his/her duties while on University property or at official University functions; or resisting or obstructing such officials in the performance of or the attempt to perform their duties.
Actually, yes they do. I have more than a modicum of law. You clearly do not. I am not the least surprised that someone who cannot read and comprehend case law cannot read and comprehend the difference between "you claim to be in law enforcement" and "you're a liar." On the internet, anyone can claim to be anything.
I wonder if you think it hurts my feelings that you're going to "ignore" me. That's funny.
Quote:
As members of our academic community and of society at large, students have both rights and responsibilities, and are expected to comply with the general law, University policies, and campus regulations. The University's Standards of Conduct for Studentsprohibit conduct that impairs, interferes with, or obstructs its "missions, processes, and functions" of teaching, research, learning, and public service. See the UC "Policy on Student Conduct and Discipline," revised May 17, 2002, Sections 101.00 and 102.00 (http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/uwnews/aospol/uc100.html - broken link).
Quote:
102.16 Failure to Comply with Directions of Official, or Resisting or Obstructing Official. Failure to identify oneself to, or comply with the directions of, a University official or other public official acting in the performance of his/her duties while on University property or at official University functions; or resisting or obstructing such officials in the performance of or the attempt to perform their duties.
We'll do this one more time, in your language.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Americans with disability's act.
The blind, the visually disabled, and the otherwise physically disabled have the same right as the able-bodied to the full and free use of the streets, highways, sidewalks, walkways, public buildings, public facilities, and other public places;
No Permit.
They can't. Their fearless leader has backed them so now they're all in or they have to eat the egg that's on their faces.
Pretty much. For all their cries of abuse and partisanship they'd be among the most prolific posters on the threads bashing conservative lawlessness had the protestors been conservative.
It must be frustrating for them waiting for conservatives to exhibit similar lawless behavior and never having it happen.
Jill61
What about this case law?
Look up an answer to my Q yet?
I read this one in another post but I wasn't sure who the author was.
But I thought it would apply.
Quote:
In Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 87 S. Ct. 242, 17 L. Ed. 2d 149 (1966), however, the Court also made clear that assemblies are not lawful merely because they involve a political issue. In this case Harriet L. Adderley and other college students had protested the arrest of CIVIL RIGHTS protesters by blocking a jail driveway. When the students ignored requests to leave the area, they were arrested and charged with TRESPASS. The Court held that "[t]he State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated."
Libertarians aren't the same as conservatives, though - and I've spoken to so-called libertarians that bend over backwards to defend police misconduct and brutality. Reason does do a good job of covering this issue though, particularly Radley Balko.
Jill61
What about this case law?
Look up an answer to my Q yet?
I read this one in another post but I wasn't sure who the author was.
But I thought it would apply.
Quote:
In Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 87 S. Ct. 242, 17 L. Ed. 2d 149 (1966), however, the Court also made clear that assemblies are not lawful merely because they involve a political issue. In this case Harriet L. Adderley and other college students had protested the arrest of CIVIL RIGHTS protesters by blocking a jail driveway. When the students ignored requests to leave the area, they were arrested and charged with TRESPASS. The Court held that "[t]he State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated."
You just don't get it.
1. Your case was decided in a Florida court. And while a court can consider decisions handed down by courts in other jurisdictions, they are not binding. The case I provided you was decided by a California court. Yours is not relevant, mine is actual binding precedent that governs this case.
2. You keep citing things that don't matter and that aren't in dispute. Even if I were to completely agree that your Florida case is useful in finding that the students were acting illegally — a point which I have never disputed, by the way — it has nothing whatsoever to do with what degree of force it is acceptable for the police to have used in order to effect arrests or disperse the crowd.
This is the answer to your question:
Young v. The County of Los Angeles
[T]he “immediate threat to safety of the officer or others,” (Miller, 340 F.3d at 964), was negligible.
[T]he crimes involved ... were non-violent misdemeanors committed in a manner that gave no indication of dangerousness to Wells or others, and thus not sufficiently “severe” to justify the use of significant force.
Young was not actively resisting arrest or attempting to flee.
As well, while not included among the factors we traditionally consider, the fact that Wells could have feasibly employed less intrusive measures prior to his use of force suggests that the government's interest in the use of significant force was extremely limited, if not altogether non-existent.
Having determined that the force allegedly used against Young was significant and that the governmental interest in the use of that force minimal, we conclude that, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Young, the force used by Wells was excessive in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
You apparently don't get that not a shred of that is relevant as to the question of the use of force against the students. Read the relevant case law that I have provided more than once in this thread.
Even if the students were violating campus policy, school conduct rules, or even the law, their actions did not warrant a use of force against them. Young v. The County of Los Angeles.
You apparently don't get that not a shred of that is relevant as to the question of the use of force against the students. Read the relevant case law that I have provided more than once in this thread.
Even if the students were violating campus policy, school conduct rules, or even the law, their actions did not warrant a use of force against them. Young v. The County of Los Angeles.
Got it yet?
Quote:
Petitioners, 32 students, were members of a group of about 200 who on a nonpublic jail driveway, which they blocked, and on adjacent county jail premises had, by singing, clapping, and dancing, demonstrated against their schoolmates' arrest and perhaps against segregation in the jail and elsewhere. The sheriff, the jail's custodian, advised them that they were trespassing on county property and would have to leave or be arrested. The 107 demonstrators refusing to depart were thereafter arrested and convicted under a Florida trespass statute for "trespass with a malicious and mischievous intent." Petitioners contend that their convictions, affirmed by the Florida Circuit Court and the District Court of Appeal, deprived them of their "rights of free speech, assembly, petition, due process of law and equal protection of the laws" under the Fourteenth Amendment. Held:
1. The Florida trespass statute, here applied to a demonstration on the premises of a jail, which is built for security purposes and is not open to the public, is aimed at conduct of a limited kind and is not unconstitutionally vague as were the common-law, breach-of-the-peace statutes invalidated in Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 , and Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 559 . Pp. 41-43.
2. The doctrine of abatement is inapplicable here. Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 , distinguished. P. 43.
3. The abstract proposition that petty criminal statutes may not be used to violate minorities' constitutional rights is irrelevant to this case. P. 44.
4. There was ample evidence to support petitioners' trespass convictions for remaining on jail grounds reserved for jail uses after they had been directed to leave by the sheriff. There was no evidence at all that petitioners were arrested or convicted for their views or objectives. Pp. 44-48.
Too stupid isn't a good argument. Negligent and retarded is a liberal stance that not even the courts accept.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
