See it here.
Michael Schroeder - Jan 10, 2012 - Public
This is how we should all react when see a Citizens' rights being violated. This is in fact not only an OPTION, it is an OBLIGATION for freedom loving Americans.
- Comment - Hang out - Share
Expand this comment »Jan 10, 2012 - Edit
Michael Schroeder - I'm point out the citizen who attacked the cop. The backstory on this is that they grabbed a random black man who chose not to obey when told to come with them, when they would not provide him with a legal reason to do so.
As I said, we as citizens are obligated to act in the manner of that brave soul who stood up to the fascist.
As I said, we as citizens are obligated to act in the manner of that brave soul who stood up to the fascist.
Jan 10, 2012
Jason ON - I don't know what this means:
I'm point out the citizen who attacked the cop.
Where did you get this backstory? Did the police have reason to suspect the original man was involved with something illegal? Was he suspected of drugs? Was he a CI? Did the police get a report of a similarly dressed man in the area having committed a crime?
The police are allowed to stop you for questioning and they really don't need a reason to although it does help if they have one. We don't know why the guy was thrown to the ground and had the two police officers on him.
Collapse this commentI'm point out the citizen who attacked the cop.
Where did you get this backstory? Did the police have reason to suspect the original man was involved with something illegal? Was he suspected of drugs? Was he a CI? Did the police get a report of a similarly dressed man in the area having committed a crime?
The police are allowed to stop you for questioning and they really don't need a reason to although it does help if they have one. We don't know why the guy was thrown to the ground and had the two police officers on him.
Jan 10, 2012 - Edit
Michael Schroeder - As for where I got the backstory - I used something called deductive logic. First, I watched the video and saw that they were Baltimore police (based on their insignia and their car) . I then looked at the posting date of the source linked at copblock.org. Then I googled "baltimore police attacked during arrest" and read several different articles, some mainstream some exstream, about the incident, then made a judgement on my own.
But I have to tell you, +Jason ON, you're a sheep and it's people like you that give police an overinflated sense of their place in the world and the obligations of their office.
The police are most certainly not allowed to stop you for questioning, there is a concept in the United States called due process of law.
Secondly, any time the police intend to interact with a citizen for any reason they must provide a valid reason. If their reason is unconstitutional or not valid in some other way, or even if you choose not to do so, unless you are already told you are being put under arrest, then you have no obligation to adhere to their orders or stay in their presence.
"Resisting arrest" is the only charge the original victim here will be facing, be cause there was no other crime committed prior - So the reason they're arresting him is that he was resisting an unlawful arrest, which is well within a citizens' Constitutional rights.
Collapse this commentBut I have to tell you, +Jason ON, you're a sheep and it's people like you that give police an overinflated sense of their place in the world and the obligations of their office.
The police are most certainly not allowed to stop you for questioning, there is a concept in the United States called due process of law.
Secondly, any time the police intend to interact with a citizen for any reason they must provide a valid reason. If their reason is unconstitutional or not valid in some other way, or even if you choose not to do so, unless you are already told you are being put under arrest, then you have no obligation to adhere to their orders or stay in their presence.
"Resisting arrest" is the only charge the original victim here will be facing, be cause there was no other crime committed prior - So the reason they're arresting him is that he was resisting an unlawful arrest, which is well within a citizens' Constitutional rights.
Jan 10, 2012
Expand this comment »Yesterday 9:08 AM - Edit
Michael Schroeder - +Jason ON - You can't withhold your opinion, as you say you will, when you have already offered it.
You should research for yourself the incident, which is very easily found based on the criteria presented already. I say you should research it yourself because in researching it you will find much data and many situations that will be all the more valuable to your experience because you discovered them while researching for yourself.
You won't appreciate, clearly, incidences that are handfed to you.
As for Constitutional Law, I'll give you a very brief class.
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees a citizen from illegal search and seizure. This is not the "seizure" that we think of, as in seizing goods, but also of seizure of person.
The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly upheld that a citizen does not need to listen to or address police officers unless they are under arrest or being seized. They have also upheld that police have a right to conduct a pat down or frisking, if and only if, several specific conditions are met. In this incident, none of those seemed to have been met, based on the released statements of the police department and witnesses.
Also, the Supreme Court has upheld a citizens right to avoid a "citizen encounter" - that is an interaction with police officers who have not used a show of force or indicated in a way that a reasonable person would believe they are compelled to obey. If it is not a citizen encounter, it is an arrest or seizure.
So, in short, the police had no right to escalate a citizen encounter for which they did not have cause to arrest or even to pat down the suspect into a full arrest and the citizen was fully within his rights to protest and avoid this unlawful seizure of his person. The bystander who assaulted the police was doing nothing more than ensuring the Constitutional rights of his fellow citizen, upon noting that the police officers were directly in violation of such.
And I reiterate, it is the duty of a citizen to act a way that upholds the Constitutional rights of all citizens, especially when those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution are in violation of it.
Collapse this commentYou should research for yourself the incident, which is very easily found based on the criteria presented already. I say you should research it yourself because in researching it you will find much data and many situations that will be all the more valuable to your experience because you discovered them while researching for yourself.
You won't appreciate, clearly, incidences that are handfed to you.
As for Constitutional Law, I'll give you a very brief class.
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees a citizen from illegal search and seizure. This is not the "seizure" that we think of, as in seizing goods, but also of seizure of person.
The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly upheld that a citizen does not need to listen to or address police officers unless they are under arrest or being seized. They have also upheld that police have a right to conduct a pat down or frisking, if and only if, several specific conditions are met. In this incident, none of those seemed to have been met, based on the released statements of the police department and witnesses.
Also, the Supreme Court has upheld a citizens right to avoid a "citizen encounter" - that is an interaction with police officers who have not used a show of force or indicated in a way that a reasonable person would believe they are compelled to obey. If it is not a citizen encounter, it is an arrest or seizure.
So, in short, the police had no right to escalate a citizen encounter for which they did not have cause to arrest or even to pat down the suspect into a full arrest and the citizen was fully within his rights to protest and avoid this unlawful seizure of his person. The bystander who assaulted the police was doing nothing more than ensuring the Constitutional rights of his fellow citizen, upon noting that the police officers were directly in violation of such.
And I reiterate, it is the duty of a citizen to act a way that upholds the Constitutional rights of all citizens, especially when those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution are in violation of it.
Yesterday 10:57 AM
Expand this comment »Yesterday 11:08 AM - Edit
0 comments:
Post a Comment