Jumping Frog wrote:<SNIP> I'd like to point out that anyone promoting the idea of shooting police officers trying to make an arrest is a clear non-starter in my book. The time to discuss whether an arrest was legal or not is in the courtroom, not out there facing a gun muzzle.
I suppose one could theoretically argue about a hypothetical corrupt police squad where the person truly thinks they will be killed or quietly "disappear" before ever making it to jail, but we are still the United States, not the cartel-owned and corrupt Mexico. In the United States, 99.9999999999999% of arrests should be battled in the courtroom.
Maybe the time to argue is in the undisclosed location where you are being held without charges and indefinitely.
Jumping Frog wrote:<SNIP> I'd like to point out that anyone promoting the idea of shooting police officers trying to make an arrest is a clear non-starter in my book. The time to discuss whether an arrest was legal or not is in the courtroom, not out there facing a gun muzzle.
I suppose one could theoretically argue about a hypothetical corrupt police squad where the person truly thinks they will be killed or quietly "disappear" before ever making it to jail, but we are still the United States, not the cartel-owned and corrupt Mexico. In the United States, 99.9999999999999% of arrests should be battled in the courtroom.
Maybe the time to argue is in the undisclosed location where you are being held without charges and indefinitely.
I think that falls under the 'quietly "disappear"' portion of my statement.
I am not naive and realize we could see those days. But today, at least, even the ones being held under the "Patriot" Act are still a miniscule percentage of total arrests.
Jumping Frog wrote:<SNIP> I'd like to point out that anyone promoting the idea of shooting police officers trying to make an arrest is a clear non-starter in my book. The time to discuss whether an arrest was legal or not is in the courtroom, not out there facing a gun muzzle.
I suppose one could theoretically argue about a hypothetical corrupt police squad where the person truly thinks they will be killed or quietly "disappear" before ever making it to jail, but we are still the United States, not the cartel-owned and corrupt Mexico. In the United States, 99.9999999999999% of arrests should be battled in the courtroom.
Maybe the time to argue is in the undisclosed location where you are being held without charges and indefinitely.
I think that falls under the 'quietly "disappear"' portion of my statement.
I am not naive and realize we could see those days. But today, at least, even the ones being held under the "Patriot" Act are still a miniscule percentage of total arrests.
True but the legal mechanism is in place and the DHS and IRS are stockpiling weapons and ammo. FWIW, a miniscule percentage of "quietly disappearing" is too grave to ignore. Waiting until you have been subdued to "argue" a false arrest may be waiting too long. Depends on the charges though, I guess.
FWIW, I don't fear the patriot act as much as the NDAA.
I Thess 5:21
Disclaimer: IANAL, IANYL, IDNPOOTV, IDNSIAHIE and IANROFL
"There is no situation so bad that you can't make it worse." - Chris Hadfield, NASA ISS Astronaut
SewTexas wrote:let me see if I can correctly word what my husband the law nerd (he'd love to go to law school) explained to me last night about the Miller decision.
Miller didn't actually show up to court, he ran off to Canada, this is a problem.
So the decision is actually a negative,
it's "you didn't prove that sawed off shotguns aren't used in war"
Had Miller actually shown up he might have presented evidence and we would have a decision that could be used, instead according to my husband, it's kinda iffy.
Actually, wasn't the reason MIller did not show up was becasue he was dead?
Anygunanywhere
Uh, no. U.S. vs. Miller was heard on March 30 and an opinion was rendered May 15. Miller was indeed dead at the time of the opinion, he was involved in an armed robbery on April 3, and his body and burnt get away car found on April 4. The political chicanery involved in this case becoming the first 2A case in regards the NFA is amazing. Here's some history http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv2/groups/ ... 060964.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It's important to note that when the officers came to arrest Bad Elk he had broken no law and there was no warrant for his arrest. Resisting officers who came to confiscate your weapons with warrants in hand, while clearly unconstitutional, would not be the same fact pattern as the Bad Elk case, and you would have serious problems defending your actions in courts which would clearly recognize the unconstitutional law as legitimate.
Moving past the Holiday Inn, I'd like to point out that anyone promoting the idea of shooting police officers trying to make an arrest is a clear non-starter in my book. The time to discuss whether an arrest was legal or not is in the courtroom, not out there facing a gun muzzle.
What if they're wearing red coats?
Equo ne credite, Teucri. Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes
...Moving past the Holiday Inn, I'd like to point out that anyone promoting the idea of shooting police officers trying to make an arrest is a clear non-starter in my book. The time to discuss whether an arrest was legal or not is in the courtroom, not out there facing a gun muzzle.
I suppose one could theoretically argue about a hypothetical corrupt police squad where the person truly thinks they will be killed or quietly "disappear" before ever making it to jail, but we are still the United States, not the cartel-owned and corrupt Mexico. In the United States, 99.9999999999999% of arrests should be battled in the courtroom.
I kind of wonder what would have happened had the women LAPD shot at unannounced returned fire. They clearly emptied their mags, and must have been exempt from weapons training.
...Moving past the Holiday Inn, I'd like to point out that anyone promoting the idea of shooting police officers trying to make an arrest is a clear non-starter in my book. The time to discuss whether an arrest was legal or not is in the courtroom, not out there facing a gun muzzle.
I suppose one could theoretically argue about a hypothetical corrupt police squad where the person truly thinks they will be killed or quietly "disappear" before ever making it to jail, but we are still the United States, not the cartel-owned and corrupt Mexico. In the United States, 99.9999999999999% of arrests should be battled in the courtroom.
I kind of wonder what would have happened had the women LAPD shot at unannounced returned fire. They clearly emptied their mags, and must have been exempt from weapons training.
...Moving past the Holiday Inn, I'd like to point out that anyone promoting the idea of shooting police officers trying to make an arrest is a clear non-starter in my book. The time to discuss whether an arrest was legal or not is in the courtroom, not out there facing a gun muzzle.
I suppose one could theoretically argue about a hypothetical corrupt police squad where the person truly thinks they will be killed or quietly "disappear" before ever making it to jail, but we are still the United States, not the cartel-owned and corrupt Mexico. In the United States, 99.9999999999999% of arrests should be battled in the courtroom.
I kind of wonder what would have happened had the women LAPD shot at unannounced returned fire. They clearly emptied their mags, and must have been exempt from weapons training.
thats incredible... and incredulous... twice in one day... think these guys were on a mission to be judge and jury? here we have another mental case.. at least 5 of them... the one they are looking for and 4 cops shooting civilians.... looks like unbridled marshal law to me... execution on site... last thought, how does one mistake a 71 year old woman and a 49 year old woman with Hispanic sure names as a large black man? clearly they were shooting at both the passenger side and the drivers side.... there is something fishy about this accidental/mistaken identity shooting...
