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.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 11 days ago)
35,637 posts, read 17,994,810 times
Reputation: 50679
This ruling would do to pedestrians what we afford drivers of cars to do.
You can't just chase and detain someone because they're getting away, and for no other offense at all.
And you can't chase them for very minor infractions.
Just like if the pedestrian were driving a car instead of on foot.
One particularly interesting practice is a cop car roaring up to the crowd, stopping and jumping out as if to arrest people, and then going after the ones who are running away.
THAT is directly contradictory to the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
You can't just chase people around like school yard bullies at recess.
Sooo...drones armed with tasers? I mean....that does seem the solution right?
Meh, just let criminals do their thing. Maybe just disband the police all together. Let the gangs run the streets, what could possibly go wrong with that ?
This ruling would do to pedestrians what we afford drivers of cars to do.
You can't just chase and detain someone because they're getting away, and for no other offense at all.
And you can't chase them for very minor infractions.
Just like if the pedestrian were driving a car instead of on foot.
One particularly interesting practice is a cop car roaring up to the crowd, stopping and jumping out as if to arrest people, and then going after the ones who are running away.
THAT is directly contradictory to the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
You can't just chase people around like school yard bullies at recess.
Why run in the first place ? Generally if a LEO approaching where I am at, I will strike up a conversation with them.
In the past, the only time I vacated where I was at when police showed up on scene is when I knew I was doing something that was unlawful.
For starters, the 22-year-old man survived (unfortunately) while the fresh gang recruit with him died (unfortunately). And of course the cops were pursuing them because the kid had just opened fire on a passing car. The Soros-funded DA tried to find a way to charge the cops with a crime but couldn't, so she reluctantly exonerated them while still blaming them for the kid's death and not on the fact he had turned and pointed a gun at them, or that they were chasing him in the first place because he shot at somebody.
So why that was the catalyst for telling cops they can't chase after trespassers or reckless drivers or petty thieves who simply don't feel like being arrested that day is beyond me. It's like the Broken Windows approach in reverse: it doesn't matter if every window is broken is long as the building is not on fire.
"The Soros-funded DA tried to find a way to charge the cops with a crime but couldn't,"
"The Soros-funded DA tried to find a way to charge the cops with a crime but couldn't,"
Hopefully ANOTHER DEM DA will be re-called!
1) Illinois has no recall mechanism; 2) when she was up for re-election, she won by double digits even after the Juicy Smollet saga unflinchingly exposed how corrupt she is. So apparently the good folks of Chicago WANT this. I'd say "let them have it" except my office is downtown so I too get to contend with the after-effects of the local voters' stupidity.
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.