LoL - Not in the least.
Gunny followed through on this argument like a pro, the rep is more than well deserved.
Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34
Jealous much?
LoL - Not in the least.
Gunny followed through on this argument like a pro, the rep is more than well deserved.
Jealous much?
"It's a Free Country."
"They hate us for our Freedoms."
"The troops are protecting your Freedom."
You're not nuts! You're FISHERMEN!!!
Never fails, this forum delivers, no doubt.
Hat Tip to AGameOfThones
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ping-on-Window
So Lethal, the courts say you can drive away when not under arrest.
Of course, if you do, you're liable to get gunned down.
I won't argue this point at all, that Patricia Cook, in this case, aggravated and provoked a psychopath that ended up killing her.
I have consistently stated that, if you want to survive an encounter with modern day US LEOs, you had better be calm, submissive and utterly compliant and that an encounter can go sideways in a matter of seconds that can leave you arrested, beaten or dead.
And that even more important than that, is to have no dealings with them in the first place.
DO NOT CALL THE COPS - DO NOT DIAL 911
"The evidence showed that Randle was not prevented from leaving the parking lot," Judge John M. Melanson wrote for the court. "The district court found that Randle could have backed up and driven away from the encounter without running over the officer because the officer was at Randle's driver's side window and the officer's vehicle was two car lengths behind Randle's."
"By approaching Randle's vehicle in the parking lot and tapping on the window, the officer did not restrict Randle's liberty to ignore the officer's presence and go about his business," Melanson wrote. "We conclude that, when the officer parked behind Randle's vehicle, left the patrol car's headlights on, approached Randle's vehicle and knocked on the window, such conduct would not have communicated to a reasonable person that he or she was not at liberty to ignore the officer's presence and go about his or her business."
Last edited by Anti Federalist; 02-18-2012 at 04:26 PM.
Non sequitur. It doesn't mean a private police force would be any better.And people fear private security.Government murder is so much more legitimate. /sarcasm
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God." ~Lord Kelvin
I'll take a crack at your little quiz. I might add that you have much to learn in the way of the law.
1. No, the police officer has to have a reason to suspect the person in question of a crime.
2. The officer must have evidence that a crime is about to take place. He can't just assume or suspect something.
3.Because he has no reason to lie. Even if he did, his testimony would be just as good as the cop's.
4. He says one hand was on the door handle and the other was on the gun and that the officer's hand never went through the window. The police officer never had the right to put his hand in the vehicle anyway. Also, it is suspect that he couldn't get his hand out of the window when everyone knows window's don't go up that fast.
5. It proves he was lying, and that he was never in danger for his life.
6. Yes, that's the whole point. If his blue lights are not on, then it is simply a casual confrontation and not an arrest or detainment so he doesn't have the right to force the person to do anything.
7. That question is irrelevant. It doesn't justify deadly force. Citizens can't be suspected of a crime simply because they didn't want to talk to the police. That would be a massive invasion of privacy and human rights.
8. Maybe the next five shots were the deadly ones. Did you read it? Also, it is only natural for a car that is in drive to keep moving if the driver is suddenly killed.
9. Under the law, yes. He was never justified to use force of any kind.
10. This story and the hundreds of others like it give me all the information I need to know, not to mention the principled stance against having state police force.
11. He should have walked away and went about his own business.
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God." ~Lord Kelvin
Yes sequitor. A private police force does not carry with it a monopoly on force. A private police force is accountable, a mobile tyrant is not.
Let me take a slightly different angle which hopefully will address most of the responses. Two issues:
1. POLICE OFFICER
What most of you expect me to believe is that this trained officer was just some crazy trigger-happy idiot who could not wait to pump several bullets into a middle aged woman. He was in a parking lot, was in the middle of a loud heated argument that could have been heard by many others, in broad daylight. Despite being conscious of all this and the fact that he could be seen by witnesses, he just decided to do something stupid like shooting someone several times that he supposedly knew was unarmed. And you also expect me to believe he knowingly broke the law and violated the constitution without caring that he may get jailed for murder. A choice between that and the other possible thesis that he judged her to be a potential threat or criminal in the heat of the moment with only split-seconds to make the decision, I lean towards the latter explanation until I see evidence of deliberate murder.
2. TENNESSEE V. GARNER COURT CASE (1985)
This landmark case is often used as a legal precedent in cases like this. The situation involved an unarmed burgler who was fleeing the scene of a crime and was told to halt but fled anyway and was shot dead by an officer who acted on a Tennessee statute that gave power to the police to use all necessary force to apprehend a fleeing suspect. The dead suspect's father sued based on the 4th Amendment but the District Court found the officer's actions constitutional. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and it went to the Supreme Court who upheld the Sixth Circuit's decision by 6-3.
Prima Facie, you probably think this destroys my arguments, especially those of you who are shocked and think my opinion is insane. When you dig deeper into that case, you discover that a dissenting opinon was rendered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (the first female Supreme Court Judge). The other two dissenting Justices who agreed with her were none other than the Chief Justice himself, Warren E. Burger and William Rehnquist (who succeeded Burger as Chief Justice). So presumably, these distinguished justices are as insane as me.
Some excerpts from the case (bold headings are my own and my comments are at the end):
SUMMARY
A Tennessee statute provides that, if, after a police officer has given notice of an intent to arrest a criminal suspect, the suspect flees or forcibly resists, "the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest."
Held: The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
THE SIX MAJORITY MEMBERS
The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.
It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.
THE THREE DISSENTING MEMBERS
By disregarding the serious and dangerous nature of residential burglaries and the longstanding practice of many States, the Court effectively creates a Fourth Amendment right allowing a burglary suspect to flee unimpeded from a police officer who has probable cause to arrest, who has ordered the suspect to halt, and who has no means short of firing his weapon to prevent escape. I do not believe that the Fourth Amendment supports such a right, and I accordingly dissent.
The facts below warrant brief review because they highlight the difficult, split-second decisions police officers must make in these circumstances.
...
For purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis, I agree with the Court that Officer Hymon "seized" Gamer by shooting him. Whether that seizure was reasonable, and therefore permitted by the Fourth Amendment, requires a careful balancing of the important public interest in crime prevention and detection and the nature and quality of the intrusion upon legitimate interests of the individual.
...
The clarity of hindsight cannot provide the standard for judging the reasonableness of police decisions made in uncertain and often dangerous circumstances. Moreover, I am far more reluctant than is the Court to conclude that the Fourth Amendment proscribes a police practice that was accepted at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights and has continued to receive the support of many state legislatures.
...
There is no question that the effectiveness of police use of deadly force is arguable, and that many States or individual police departments have decided not to authorize it in circumstances similar to those presented here. But it should go without saying that the effectiveness or popularity of a particular police practice does not determine its constitutionality.
...
For purposes of this case, we must recall that the police officer, in the course of investigating a nighttime burglary, had reasonable cause to arrest the suspect and ordered him to halt. The officer's use of force resulted because the suspected burglar refused to heed this command and the officer reasonably believed that there was no means short of firing his weapon to apprehend the suspect. Without questioning the importance of a person's interest in his life, I do not think this interest encompasses a right to flee unimpeded from the scene of a burglary. Cf. Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 445 U. S. 617, n. 14 (1980) (WHITE, J., dissenting) ("[T]he policeman's hands should not be tied merely because of the possibility that the suspect will fail to cooperate with legitimate actions by law enforcement personnel"). The legitimate interests of the suspect in these circumstances are adequately accommodated by the Tennessee statute: to avoid the use of deadly force and the consequent risk to his life, the suspect need merely obey the valid order to halt.
...
No one can view the death of an unarmed and apparently nonviolent 15-year-old without sorrow, much less disapproval. Nonetheless, the reasonableness of Officer Hymon's conduct for purposes of the Fourth Amendment cannot be evaluated by what later appears to have been a preferable course of police action.
...
The reasonableness of this action for purposes of the Fourth Amendment is not determined by the unfortunate nature of this particular case; instead, the question is whether it is constitutionally impermissible for police officers, as a last resort, to shoot a burglary suspect fleeing the scene of the crime. Because I reject the Fourth Amendment reasoning of the majority and the Court of Appeals, I briefly note that no other constitutional provision supports the decision below.
...
Even if I agreed that the Fourth Amendment was violated under the circumstances of this case, I would be unable to join the Court's opinion. The Court holds that deadly force may be used only if the suspect
"threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm."
The Court ignores the more general implications of its reasoning. Relying on the Fourth Amendment, the majority asserts that it is constitutionally unreasonable to use deadly force against fleeing criminal suspects who do not appear to pose a threat of serious physical harm to others. Ibid. By declining to limit its holding to the use of firearms, the Court unnecessarily implies that the Fourth Amendment constrains the use of any police practice that is potentially lethal, no matter how remote the risk. Cf. Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95 (1983).
Although it is unclear from the language of the opinion, I assume that the majority intends the word "use" to include only those circumstances in which the suspect is actually apprehended. Absent apprehension of the suspect, there is no "seizure" for Fourth Amendment purposes. I doubt that the Court intends to allow criminal suspects who successfully escape to return later with claims against officers who used, albeit unsuccessfully, deadly force in their futile attempt to capture the fleeing suspect. The Court's opinion, despite its broad language, actually decides only that the shooting of a fleeing burglary suspect who was in fact neither armed nor dangerous can support action.
The Court's silence on critical factors in the decision to use deadly force simply invites second-guessing of difficult police decisions that must be made quickly in the most trying of circumstances. Cf. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. at 445 U. S. 619 (WHITE, J., dissenting). Police are given no guidance for determining which objects, among an array of potentially lethal weapons ranging from guns to knives to baseball bats to rope, will justify the use of deadly force. The Court also declines to outline the additional factors necessary to provide "probable cause" for believing that a suspect "poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury," ante at 471 U. S. 3, when the officer has probable cause to arrest and the suspect refuses to obey an order to halt. But even if it were appropriate in this case to limit the use of deadly force to that ambiguous class of suspects, I believe the class should include nighttime residential burglars who resist arrest by attempting to flee the scene of the crime. We can expect an escalating volume of litigation as the lower courts struggle to determine if a police officer's split-second decision to shoot was justified by the danger posed by a particular object and other facts related to the crime. Thus, the majority opinion portends a burgeoning area of Fourth Amendment doctrine concerning the circumstances in which police officers can reasonably employ deadly force.
The Court's opinion sweeps broadly to adopt an entirely new standard for the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to apprehend fleeing felons. Thus, the Court "lightly brushe[s] aside," Payton v. New York, supra, at 445 U. S. 600, a longstanding police practice that predates the Fourth Amendment and continues to receive the approval of nearly half of the state legislatures. I cannot accept the majority's creation of a constitutional right to flight for burglary suspects seeking to avoid capture at the scene of the crime. Whatever the constitutional limits on police use of deadly force in order to apprehend a fleeing felon, I do not believe they are exceeded in a case in which a police officer has probable cause to arrest a suspect at the scene of a residential burglary, orders the suspect to halt, and then fires his weapon as a last resort to prevent the suspect's escape into the night. I respectfully dissent.
SOURCE:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...71/1/case.html
-------------------
MY COMMENTS
The essential question that needs to be settled is whether the officer had a justifiable reason to shoot at her in the specific situation of her disobeying his order and driving away. Since we do not know the exact circumstances of their interaction, we cannot conclude just yet that he was in the wrong. We are yet to hear his explanation in more detail and we are yet to examine Buchele's full testimony in detail.
One wrong assumption most of you have made was that she drove away in response to something negative he said or did. This has no basis. She could have decided to drive away before he even said anything. Or he could have asked something reasonable like for her to show him her licence/registration or what she was doing there and maybe she told him to fuck off and drove away. Fact is, her ACTION was very SUSPICIOUS and the officer had to make a decision quickly. There is no evidence so far that he intended to harm her in any way before the shooting.
EXTRA COMMENTS
Sorry to say this, but the reaction I have gotten on this forum several times proves that most of you in here are not true Libertarians. Many of you seem to be more of conspiracy theorists living in a dream world and you behave exactly like people in a cult, never accepting dissenting views. There is too much dishonesty, hypocrisy and self-contradictions on these forums. For people that claim to follow Ron Paul and his teachings, many of you are so far away from his essential philosophy and constitutionalism.
You judge the police officer as guilty before hearing all the facts which is not a constitutional position nor philosophically sound. Many of you engage in ad hominem and strawman attacks, endlessly speculate about my motives and call me a troll, something greater minds like Dr Paul would never do. You try to stifle honest debate but see no contradiction with the principle of free thought and free speech (of course within the rules of the forum). Many have this elitist attitude whereby they think they rule this forum because they have been here since 2007 and have thousands of contributions. They speak condescendingly towards "newbies" like me as if only they have superior knowledge and wisdom, and yet they spout endless fallacies that reveal minds not schooled in the process of logical thinking.
Not all is bad of course. There are some level-headed people here that I can have a respectful rational discussion with, even when we disagree. I salute such people and I hope to see more of you. Otherwise, no hard feelings guys. As much as hypocrisy and dishonesty really tick me off, I have learned to be patient.
Peace ya'll.
Last edited by Lethalmiko; 02-18-2012 at 07:15 PM.
here...read this....
my home town,
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/201...WS01/706309796
And as much as failing to clearly recognize a danger right in front of someone ticks me off, I too, have learned patience.EXTRA COMMENTS
Sorry to say this, but the reaction I have gotten on this forum several times proves that most of you in here are not true libertatians. Many of you seem to be more of conspiracy theorists living in a dream world and you behave exactly like people in a cult, never accepting dissenting views. There is too much dishonesty, hypocrisy and self-contradictions on these forums. For people that claim to follow Ron Paul and his teachings, many of you are so far away from his essential philosophy and constitutionalism.
You judge the police officer as guilty before hearing all the facts which is not a constitutional position nor philosophically sound. Many of you engage in ad hominem and strawman attacks, endlessly speculate about my motives and call me a troll, something greater minds like Dr Paul would never do. You try to stifle honest debate but see no contradiction with the principle of free thought and free speech (of course within the rules of the forum). Many have this elitist attitude whereby they think they rule this forum because they have been here since 2007 and have thousands of contributions. They speak condescendingly towards "newbies" like me as if only they have superior knowledge and wisdom, and yet they spout endless fallacies that reveal minds not schooled in the process of logical thinking.
Not all is bad of course. There are some level-headed people here that I can have a respectful rational discussion, even when we disagree. I salute such people all and I hope to see more of you. Otherwise, no hard feelings guys. As much as hypocrisy and dishonesty really tick me off, I have learned to be patient.
Peace ya'll.
and so we come full circle, and the best advice can be found on this forum:
DO NOT CALL THE COPS FOR ANYTHING. Any contact with these gangsters can get you hurt...or killed.
You, or somebody close to you.
+rep
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote