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.
Yup. If you have a CCW permit and get stopped for speeding, for example, cops DO treat you as armed and (potentially) dangerous.
Not that they think you plan to shoot them, but it's a safety matter.
Oh, I know about how it works with a traffic stop (my ex and I did the "Officer, there's a concealed handgun in the car get out", get out hands up, let officer secure gun, etc, etc thing a few times when he was pulled over) but I'm curious about say, if my ex had been a person of interest, wanted for something, had a warrant or something like that. Like they came to our home or his office specifically looking for him - what would the police know/say/instruct officers about him? That's probably a little tangential at this point, but that's where I was going.
This is covered by the 5th Amendment's Due Process clause:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Understood. But in fairness, I don't think that's what the poster I was responding too was saying.
Gang members, guns, robberies...streets are quiet.
Someone gets shot and look at all the people on the streets...ministers, clergy, righteous and indignant neighbors.
My thought...if all these people were out and about, keeping eyes on the streets, maybe the people breaking the laws would think twice about doing that. Maybe if people tried to HELP those that needed help getting on their feet, things like this wouldn't happen. Maybe if they were there to HELP instead of PROTEST, the area would benefit.
Gang members, guns, robberies...streets are quiet.
Someone gets shot and look at all the people on the streets...ministers, clergy, righteous and indignant neighbors.
My thought...if all these people were out and about, keeping eyes on the streets, maybe the people breaking the laws would think twice about doing that. Maybe if people tried to HELP those that needed help getting on their feet, things like this wouldn't happen. Maybe if they were there to HELP instead of PROTEST, the area would benefit.
Gang members, guns, robberies...streets are quiet.
Someone gets shot and look at all the people on the streets...ministers, clergy, righteous and indignant neighbors.
My thought...if all these people were out and about, keeping eyes on the streets, maybe the people breaking the laws would think twice about doing that. Maybe if people tried to HELP those that needed help getting on their feet, things like this wouldn't happen. Maybe if they were there to HELP instead of PROTEST, the area would benefit.
I see your point and agree. However, I have seen it in the news reports that the victim in question was working towards his GED through the "Neighbor to Neighbor" program which from their website looks like exactly the kind of thing you're talking about.
I may (I don't think so) have used the term constitution too loosely. But it is absolutely FACT that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental part of the US Legal System.
For instance, "According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence."
If you don't like my source, just google "presumption of innocence".
Not directed at you specifically, because I see there have been some responses to your comment, but I think it is very misguided, and nothing more than a diversion to start arguing if someone is guilty before they've been tried. We know that it is one of the most basic principles of the US Legal System, and certainly the concept has jurisdiction here in Raleigh, NC.
I personally object to those who comment that some lives are worth less than others due to their alleged (unconvicted) crimes, associations, race, economic status, or other things. It's just not so.
... if the officer did wrong, but not willful wrong ...
If ... he was willfully wrong ...
There are other possibilities. Suppose the officer was negligently wrong. How do you propose to handle that? Do you want to keep that officer on the force?
Our society gives certain people a badge, a gun, and authority to arrest. We also hold those people to a higher standard of conduct. That is as it should be.
.
Last edited by danielbmartin; 03-02-2016 at 09:10 AM..
I may (I don't think so) have used the term constitution too loosely. But it is absolutely FACT that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental part of the US Legal System.
For instance, "According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence."
If you don't like my source, just google "presumption of innocence".
Not directed at you specifically, because I see there have been some responses to your comment, but I think it is very misguided, and nothing more than a diversion to start arguing if someone is guilty before they've been tried. We know that it is one of the most basic principles of the US Legal System, and certainly the concept has jurisdiction here in Raleigh, NC.
I personally object to those who comment that some lives are worth less than others due to their alleged (unconvicted) crimes, associations, race, economic status, or other things. It's just not so.
Between you, Mike, and DW, Google must be on overdrive this morning!
Nope. The moment I first read the article, my first reaction was "Oh ****. Raleigh is gonna become the next Ferguson or Baltimore". Luckily, I'm wrong so far since half of Raleigh didn't go up in flames last night.
They got a little more sense around here, not much, but a little.
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.
