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.
Did you not watch the video in the OP? If you saw it I guess you didn't see the one girl who kept here head and face averted as if she thought that would somehow keep them from talking to her. That cop was talking right at the side of her head and she tried to ignore him.
What were those kids doing on that sidewalk? Is there not a chance that they were trying to keep the police from going down it to get back to the street? Why I think that is just what they wanted. They wanted to push the police into the crowd for some reason that both of us know what was.
I think your conclusion may be right but your premise is wrong. Th girl was not required to talk to or listen to the police. The police are not the boss on the street.
The kids were on the sidewalk because the sidewalk is a public area.
This case arises from a traffic stop for a seatbelt violation in which Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy Richard Wells pepper sprayed Mark Anthony Young and struck him with a baton after Young exited his vehicle and disobeyed Wells's order to reenter it.
The audio transcript of the stop suggests Young was unaware he was about to be pepper sprayed:
It's not serious enough to break laws over. Besides, I don't believe in "income inequality." There is an income disparity between the rich and the poor, but so what? This is America. It's a free country. People have the right to get and be rich and to be able to hold on their wealth if they want to. It is not the government's job to legislate "income equality".
The progressives have been talking about equality as if it were allowing equal income for all. Equality of opportunity is what capitalism is all about, everybody having an equal chance to get a head. Equality of condition is what they push for. Everybody knows that communists want us to believe that we should all have equality of condition so we are all equal. I will always stand up for equal of opportunity as the way we should live and never what those people on the far left want people to believe.
1. They weren't being arrested, so your use of the term "resistance" is misplaced. They were non-compliant, which is what I bolded. You clearly did not read the cited case law for comprehension, let alone use any accuracy in attempting to rebut it.
Non compliant with what? The law?
I read what you posted - you seem to be unfamiliar with the actual facts - 10 of the protesters were arrested, which means they are accused of breaking a law (not of being "non compliant").
So yeah, the whole issue of whether or not interlocking arms constitutes active resistance is quite pertinent.
You clearly have no idea how case law works. Yes, they can compare. Young, in fact, is on point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rimmerama
Non compliant with what? The law?
I read what you posted - you seem to be unfamiliar with the actual facts - 10 of the protesters were arrested, which means they are accused of breaking a law (not of being "non compliant").
So yeah, the whole issue of whether or not interlocking arms constitutes active resistance is quite pertinent.
The students who were arrested were already in police custody. The seated students were protesting those arrests.
Interlocking arms do not pose an immediate threat to police, let alone a threat warranting "intermediate force."
Wow just wow
When it sautes you fine but if it doesn't it's the fruit of the poisonous tree.
Any time the cop can't see what is in your hands you pose the threat. Any time you resist a cop you pose a threat.
As stated arrests were made force is justified in effecting a arrest when the the person being taken into custody refuses to comply..
Get it?
It's that simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61
You clearly have no idea how case law works. Yes, they can compare. Young, in fact, is on point. The students who were arrested were already in police custody. The seated students were protesting those arrests.
Interlocking arms do not pose an immediate threat to police, let alone a threat warranting "intermediate force."
I did, you will have to a better job keeping up.
This is just cluttering things up now.
Actually, all you did was give your opinion that you think the students deserved the pepper spray because a different cop barely tried to move one student with a light pull on the arm before moving away to allow the offending officer to step over her and spray her at a moment when she was just sitting there and not posing any actual threat. And in your view, this proves they "were handled with kid gloves."
You'll excuse me if I couldn't care less about your personal opinion. I'll take the 9th Circuit over you every day of the week.
wow
When it sautes you fine but if it doesn't it's the fruit of the poisonous tree.
Any time the cop can't see what is in your hands you pose the threat. Any time you resist a cop you pose a threaght.
as stated arrests were made force is justified in effecting a arrest.
I wish I viewed the world threw rose colored glasses.
Have an enchanted life.
I'm done with this thread.
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.