Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: BlackElk

“She was arrested for kneeling and praying a rosary on PUBLIC property”

Incorrect. She was arrested for trespassing after she refused to leave when asked to by a police officer.


36 posted on 09/28/2016 7:30:09 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]


To: Boogieman
Who died and left this police officer God when he lacked statutory authority to (not ask but) REQUIRE her to leave. The court said he had no such authority and ruled accordingly. If a police officer demands that you eat three Snickers bars in his presence immediately, do you consider yourself subject to arrest for refusing to eat the Snickers bars?

A police officer is clothed with LIMITED authority and ONLY limited authority and always subject to LAW. A police officer may, for example, use force in the course of his duties but ONLY that force which is necessary to effect a legitimate and lawful purpose.

When I began practicing law, the judges in the otherwise liberal jurisdiction in which I practiced had consistently ruled that a police officer was justified in shooting or even killing a fleeing suspect just because he was fleeing. Flight suggested that the person was a fleeing felon even if the officer had little specific knowledge of the suspect.

The case law on that has changed substantially. Earlier this week, the Massachusetts (not where I practiced) Supreme Judicial Court actually ruled that black suspects are legally justified in fleeing because police had a history of mistreating blacks. Where that leaves 14th Amendment rights to require "equal protection of the laws" to all persons within a state's jurisdiction, we are left to speculate. Is that state judgment federally prohibited or are white suspects also free to flee from police because blacks have been found to have been mistreated and whites are entitled to equal protection?

One concludes that, as is often the case, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (which had previously invented "gay" "marriage" out of whole cloth claiming that to be the intention of John Adams in writing the Commonwealth's constitution in the 1700s, did not really think this all the way through and that it probably is incapble of thinking it through.

Not so with Oklahoma courts which find that Mrs. Bell could not be guilty as charged because the charges were baseless.

40 posted on 09/28/2016 11:34:45 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Rack 'em, Danno!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson