Posted on 07/07/2016 7:32:13 AM PDT by WayneDupreeShow
One: Arrests are not convictions.
Two: The Second Amendment flatly denies the federal government the power to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Three: Even if convicted and the sentence is served, then all rights should be fully restored.
He likely BROKE a GUN LAW. He would break a MILLION Gun laws.
Given the Second Amendment's flat prohibition to the government of the infringement of keeping and bearing arms, which of these gun laws are actually valid?
WHY DID HE RESIST?
I would say that it's human nature.
He was going to jail. He didn’t want to go back to jail.
Maybe that's why he was resisting, maybe it was because he felt injustice at his situation; I don't know.
He was RESISTING with a GUN in his pocket. This had no chance of ending well for him.
This is perhaps the only sensible sentiment in your post.
Your two statements are not equivalent.
YES to the first.
NO to the second.
It becomes increasingly clear, many of our cops are trained to quickly kill people, rather than take the slightest risk to themselves.
And it is not just blacks.
Thing is, we can’t see the thugs hands.
That is key.
The bad apples put targets on the good cops’ backs.
He had a permit to conceal carry his weapon? I thought no permit was required in LA.
He had 10 previous arrests.
People Who May Not Carry a Gun in Louisiana:
The following individuals are prohibited from carrying a concealed weapon in Louisiana:
•people younger than 21 years old
•illegal aliens
•fugitives from justice
•convicted felons
•unlawful users of controlled substances
•people who have a physical or mental infirmary that prevents the safe handling of a firearm
•people who have been committed to a drug abuse treatment facility or have been convicted of specified crimes involving controlled substances within the last five years
•people that chronically and habitually use alcohol in a way that impairs normal functioning (presumed when people have been convicted of certain crimes involving alcohol use, such as drunk driving)
•those who have been convicted of certain violent crimes or have a history of violent behavior
•people who have been adjudicated as mentally deficient or committed to a mental institution
•those who have been dishonorably discharged from the armed services
•people ineligible to possess a firearm under federal law, and
•people who have had a concealed carry permit application denied within the past year, or had a permit revoked within the last four years.
(La. Rev. Stat. § 40:1379.3.)
Apparently neither is Treason.
(Ref Hillary's selling aid and comfort to the enemies of the States.)
That is an excellent point.
I think it along with all the stories like these (remember that SWATing of the Marine a few years back) provides some evidence that the police [at least a non-insignificant portion] think of themselves as the unquestionable authority and want to make it known/felt. In the case you cite, the Citizen even being armed was a threat to his authority (under the same reasoning that gun-confiscators wish to take your guns), and in the marine's case it was so that they could shoot someone (see how they crowd into the doorway?).
Upthread someone said that he had a [concealed carry] permit.
The 2 things are:
1. I invoke my 5th amendment right to remain silent
2. I want a lawyer
Then shut up, cooperate physically and let the thing play out.
How does the burden of proof work here?
Self Defense is an affirmative defense. The accused has to demonstrate that he was in reasonable fear of his life or serious injury in order to assert self defense.
What is the standard of proof for that? Is it a preponderance of evidence? Or is it beyond a reasonable doubt?
Because if it is a preponderance of evidence, and the police officer says that he knew Sterling was armed and he thought that he was reaching for a gun, and the video does not demonstrate otherwise, if I were on the jury, I would have to vote to acquit.
However, if it is beyond a reasonable doubt, under the same circumstance, if I were on the jury, I would have to vote to convict.
Any Legal Eagles out there who know the standard of proof required to assert Self Defense?
>> So, obey or die?? Cops are executioners??
>
> Your two statements are not equivalent.
> YES to the first.
> NO to the second.
This is manifestly false, for if failure to obey is the cause for them to put you to death than they ARE executioners, and judge and jury.
Your crime is not what you possibly actually did to warrant an arrest, for failure to unquestioningly obey.
Perhaps this gem from one of our State Constitutions will disabuse you of the notion that this is proper:
NH State Constitution, Article 1, Section 10. [Right of Revolution.]
Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. THE DOCTRINE OF NONRESISTANCE AGAINST ARBITRARY POWER, AND OPPRESSION, IS ABSURD, SLAVISH, AND DESTRUCTIVE OF THE GOOD AND HAPPINESS OF MANKIND.
You fail to realize that you’re mode of thought makes this less than satire:
http://edward.fish/index.php/2016/07/03/stop-drop-and-cower/
Did anybody notice that after they shot him, they didn’t have to do a search for his weapon? Right in his front pocket.
OK, maybe there's one. One. Out of tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions of encounters of CCWs with police without incident.
BTW: I am one of those statistics.
It's real simple: Follow police orders and you don't risk being shot.
BLM got your back, dawg. Yo' bich' gonna be famous on FB and get PAID, too.
< /SARC>
I dont think so, watch the video again, the cop was clearly freaked out. He knows the guy has a gun, sees him reaching for something, freaks out and pops the guy. Sad day for everyone.
As I have said in the past, unless you are a police officer or have watched HUNDREDS of episodes of “COPS”, you are uninformed.
The police are trained in procedures. They aren’t going to argue with you all day if you don’t follow their commands.
Wud I do? Wud I do? It doesn’t matter, they have their reasons, just do what they say, argue about it later if you are still alive.
He was down with 2 cops on him. Actually, that’s not quite accurate. The policed want you FACE DOWN. They want, DEMAND, control of your hands preferably handcuffed behind your BACK. Until this is accomplished they don’t feel safe.
He was face UP, they did NOT have control of his hands. He was bigger than the two of them put together, He never stopped resisting, HE HAD A GUN.
Add all that up and you are a dead man.
lol. then they HAD to shoot him under PC circumstances.
Civil cases are “preponderance of evidence.” The person bringing the charges have to prove that.
Criminal cases are “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The state has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendants don’t have to “prove” anything. That is the responsibility of the state—can they prove the officers acted illegally.
What can the state prove from the facts?
With a call reporting an armed guy, then the guy not placing his hands in full view when fighting the officers, and we can’t see the hands of the thug, then it would be to me a case where the officers were struggling with an armed man that intends to take the resistance to a whole new level (deadly force).
The guy either pulled the weapon or the weapon was presented in seconds in such a way that the threat to life is there (a armed guy fighting with the police).
Is it reasonable affirmative defense to say they had to shoot because they guy was armed and the weapon was introduced and they did not have full control over the guy or the weapon.
If they arrested him and hand-cuffed him and then found the weapon, there is no threat to life so deadly force would not be reasonable.
In this case, it is reasonable to think the officers saw the weapon in the middle of the struggle and the guy was not complying and (can’t tell) the guy was struggling for control of his weapon, a threat to their life (or by-standers as well) was present.
The onus is one the state to prove the charges, not the officers to disprove the charges.
So, on a jury, you have to evaluate the facts, not your inferences, not your feelings (that is what dems do). Given what we know (thug fighting, weapon not under control of the officers), those basic facts prove the officers acted reasonably.
The facts stand that they were involved in a struggle with a non-compliant thug that was reported to be armed (subsequently found to be armed as reported by the storekeeper), and they acted reasonably. . .as you would if you were struggling with an armed thug and you shot him.
Again, the Citizen even being armed is drilled into the mind of the police officer as being a threat.
The police are not very well trained in deescalation,* rather they are increasingly trained to project force and certain LEO hiring practices indicate a bias towards those who are essentially bullies.
This whole thing could have been avoided with application of Proverbs 25:15 and Proverbs 15:1; respectively:
Honestly, this mentality of "he has a weapon so he's automatically an enemy threat" would never fly even in a literal warzone, because you'd end up friendly firing on your own guys and/or allies.
Indeed, considering all this, I wonder if some police are being trained to assert their authority in such confrontational and abrasive manner to cause escalations and therefore more police shootings, and therefore make police officer work less safe statistically which the government can use as another push for gun-control: It's for our brave, hardworking officers who ought to be able to go home to their families safely!
(Yes, I distrust our government that much; after seeing the recommendation against indictment of Hillary after essentially proving her guilty, I wonder who doesn't.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.