|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
|
Seems to me you cherry picked actually since you took the first part of his reply and took that to mean the cops were justified even though the very next line in his post explains that they aren't.
As for curfew, there is no such thing. There is nothing in the 1st amendment that says you cant protest after 8pm. Are you we children, and the gov. our parents?
Any qualifier added to your right to assembly (curfew, permits, etc.) were added to limit your freedoms.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Police appreciation thread [Re: natedawgnow] 1
#26736951 - 06/11/20 02:23 PM (3 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
natedawgnow said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Actually, this was Enlil's original post:
Quote:
You can use reasonable force to defend yourself against a threat of imminent harm. There's no threat of imminent harm, and certainly nothing to suddenly make it "reasonable" to push an old man to the ground and crack his skull open.
You left out the first part, which is what I was responding to.
Seems to me you cherry picked actually since you took the first part of his reply and took that to mean the cops were justified even though the very next line in his post explains that they aren't.
I'm assuming Enlil is an expert in the law, so I'm assuming his first statement was correct. The second part was his personal opinion, for which a jury could be convinced otherwise.
Quote:
natedawgnow said: As for curfew, there is no such thing. There is nothing in the 1st amendment that says you cant protest after 8pm. Are you we children, and the gov. our parents?
Any qualifier added to your right to assembly (curfew, permits, etc.) were added to limit your freedoms.
I'll let Enlil weigh in on the legality of curfews, since again, I trust he is an expert in the law. I'm not in favor of them, but I don't know what the legality is.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Police appreciation thread [Re: natedawgnow]
#26736963 - 06/11/20 02:28 PM (3 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: I'll let Enlil weigh in on the legality of curfews, since again, I trust he is an expert in the law. I'm not in favor of them, but I don't know what the legality is.
Here's what FindLaw says about curfews:
"Mandatory curfew is only for public property and cannot be set on private property or your property. This means that if a curfew is set for your city, you might need to go home, but you are free to be in your yard, deck, patio, porch, or driveway. City ordinances like "quiet hours" may still apply.
Direct Police Orders During Curfew
A direct order from a law enforcement officer or public safety officer will trump a curfew law. These actions must be followed, or you will be breaking the law. Orders like "go inside" or "get out" or "get down" are safety instructions that you have to follow, even on your own property."
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
There's nothing in the federal Constitution that prohibits a curfew, but there might be in some state constitutions. In addition, the 1st amendment has been interpreted to allow "time, place, and manner" restrictions on speech as long as they serve an compelling government interest and are narrowly tailored.
A curfew put in place during civil unrest is almost certainly constitutional. There is a compelling government interest in keeping people from rioting, and riots, by nature, aren't the kind of thing you can combat on an individual basis.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Police appreciation thread [Re: Enlil]
#26736986 - 06/11/20 02:41 PM (3 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Again, qualifiers added to limit your freedoms. I'm sure the forefathers, while dumping tea into the harbor in the middle of the night, intended for the right to assemble to be limited by 8pm curfews
--------------------
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Police appreciation thread [Re: natedawgnow] 1
#26736993 - 06/11/20 02:44 PM (3 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
That's a gross oversimplification, though. You don't really think that constitutional rights are, or should be, absolute. It's easy to use rhetoric like that, but you are in favor of plenty of policies that limit speech. You don't believe that a person should have the right to threaten your life, do you? You don't believe that a person should have the right to lie to someone for purposes of defrauding them.
In the end, all rights have to be balanced, not only between the various rightholders, but also between the various rights.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Police appreciation thread [Re: natedawgnow] 1
#26737002 - 06/11/20 02:50 PM (3 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
natedawgnow said: I'm sure the forefathers, while dumping tea into the harbor in the middle of the night, intended for the right to assemble to be limited by 8pm curfews 
Just so that you know, the 1st amendment, which you're talking about, did not originally apply to the states. Until the 14th amendment passed after the civil war, states were literally free to ban speech. States were free to ban specific religions or have official religions. The forefathers didn't intend any constitutional protection from state action.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Police appreciation thread [Re: Enlil]
#26737006 - 06/11/20 02:54 PM (3 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Granted it is an oversimplification, it still stands that using a dozen rioters as an excuse for limiting the rights, via curfew, of thousands that arent rioting doesnt hold much water when curfews are in effect all over the nation while only a few states have actually reported rioting.
I guess labeling these as riots instead of protests gives the gov. that compelling interest you speak of that allows them to stomp on my rights,
--------------------
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Police appreciation thread [Re: natedawgnow]
#26737010 - 06/11/20 02:56 PM (3 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Well, if it makes you feel any better, we haven't seen anyone prosecuted for violating the curfew by protesting peacefully yet. It remains to be seen whether such charges would actually hold up to scrutiny. The curfew would, but there's always the "as-applied challenge" to a prosecution, and if I had a client charged for peaceful protest during curfew, I'd be raising that issue.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Police appreciation thread [Re: Enlil]
#26737014 - 06/11/20 03:01 PM (3 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
That fact makes me feel better, sure.
The fact that people use "breaking curfew" as justification for cops busting heads of 75 year olds makes me feel pretty shitty, though.
--------------------
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Police appreciation thread [Re: natedawgnow]
#26737020 - 06/11/20 03:03 PM (3 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
There's absolutely no excuse for that. If he were a serial rapist/murderer, it would still have been excessive force. What that old man did or didn't do has no relevance to the analysis.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Police appreciation thread [Re: Enlil]
#26737022 - 06/11/20 03:05 PM (3 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Explain that to the guy who said this
Quote:
Dude, listen to you. Of course those things aren't illegal. Did you not see the guy challenge a police line as they were trying to enforce curfew? Did you not see the guy walk up to the police line and wave his hands within inches or less of police equipment? You're not arguing in good faith here.
Hint: it was fal.
I guess the old man was challenging a police line while they tried to enforce curfew in the middle of the day. Seems like reason enough to damn near kill the guy
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Police appreciation thread [Re: Enlil]
#26737027 - 06/11/20 03:07 PM (3 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Is pushing someone "excessive force"?
I don't think the police intended to injure that guy, though that was unfortunately the end result.
Or is intent not relevant?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
|
I can get murder charges for punching you in the face if you go down and crack your dome and die. It's called one punch homicide. I didnt intend to kill you but it happens.
That cop shoved an elderly man. What if I pushed your grandma and she fell and bust a hip? Would you say that I didn't actually push her that hard?
Old people have a hard time with balance and what not already, that cop is a piece of shit and everybody but you seems to get that.
--------------------
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Is pushing someone "excessive force"?
Here, yes. If someone has a gun pointed at you, probably not. Quote:
I don't think the police intended to injure that guy, though that was unfortunately the end result.
Or is intent not relevant?
Intent is relevant, but not in the way you're stating it. Without going into too much detail here, this is a battery (or assault). The intent required is the intent to touch another human being in an unwanted or offensive way. An intent to cause any specific kind of harm is not necessary.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
bodhisatta 
Smurf real estate agent


Registered: 04/30/13
Posts: 61,889
Loc: Milky way
|
|
Shoving someone is excessive force. Especially if you don't view them as a treat. And the cops didn't because they walked over and past him. He was at best an obstacle
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Police appreciation thread [Re: bodhisatta]
#26737058 - 06/11/20 03:18 PM (3 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Force is excessive when it exceeds the amount and/or type of force necessary to address the threat of imminent harm. For a greater harm, greater force is often necessary. If someone tries to touch your hand, and you shoot them in the face, that's excessive. If someone bursts through your door with a gun and points it at you, shooting them in the face is probably a reasonable use of force.
Here, there was no threat that justified the shove. If he was "scanning" for frequencies (a completely absurd theory, BTW), no force would ne necessary because there is no threat of imminent harm. If he was touching, or about to touch, the police officer, it would have taken very little force to stop that conduct.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Police appreciation thread [Re: natedawgnow] 1
#26737069 - 06/11/20 03:24 PM (3 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
natedawgnow said: I can get murder charges for punching you in the face if you go down and crack your dome and die. It's called one punch homicide. I didnt intend to kill you but it happens.
I don't think murder and homicide are the same though.
Quote:
natedawgnow said: That cop shoved an elderly man. What if I pushed your grandma and she fell and bust a hip? Would you say that I didn't actually push her that hard?
My grandma shouldn't be challenging police orders to obey curfew at her age. If she broke her hip as a result, of course I'd be mad at the police, as I am in this case.
Quote:
natedawgnow said: Old people have a hard time with balance and what not already, that cop is a piece of shit and everybody but you seems to get that.
So cops should have a policy to allow the elderly get their hands close to their weapons?
Maybe someone can tell me what a more reasonable response by the cops would have been?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
bodhisatta 
Smurf real estate agent


Registered: 04/30/13
Posts: 61,889
Loc: Milky way
|
|
Telling him to go away would work for primary conduct
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Police appreciation thread [Re: bodhisatta]
#26737082 - 06/11/20 03:30 PM (3 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Did you not see the second video above? Obviously they told everyone that as they were clearing the square, and the guy decided to approach them regardless.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
|