Posted on 01/07/2017 4:00:07 AM PST by Nextrush
Use of tazers and stun guns must be reduced. When these weapons were introduced, they were very controversial. LE officials lied to the American people and promised they would only be used in situations that firearms would have been used previously. We were told they would not be used to inflict pain on people simply for disobeying an order. These weapons should never be used simply because someone is not cooperating. They should never be used to move someone along, to shut someone up or to punish someone for disobeying or being rude. They must only be used in self-defense or to subdue a suspect who is fighting with the police. Fighting means trying to strike or grab officers, not simply ignoring orders.
The deputy marshals who tackled Mumford should be fired by their employer, sued by their victim, and charged with criminal assault. Their violence was inexcusable.
Instead of producing the written detainer, the Marshalls jumped Mumford. They did not have their paper work.Its quite evident.
Actually, you typo’d “use into “sue” in your original post.
Hence, the lawsuit reply.
Thanks I understand. And appreciate you explanation.
I will proof more carefully, hard at times at work.
I work with the public enough to realize they have “issues” but the answer to their issues isn’t tazering them, no matter how rude they are. I don’t carry weapons and am not law enforcement, but I’m human and I can get disturbed by what I see out there.
The Good Book notes that one should return “evil” with “good”.
In a courtroom, the judge is in charge of ordering sanction, not law enforcement of any kind. The marshals crossed the line in that courtroom, pure and simple. The lawyer was arguing which is what lawyers do in courtrooms, last time I checked.
Got a picture? You just might have changed my tag line.
One “L” in “Marshals”, Candor.
and I can assure you, the criminal processing specialist in the office had the detainer.
If they had the detainer, itis not a matter of record. Why had the judge not taken notice of it? The judge did not remand Bundy into the custo0dy of the Marshals, they simoply grabbed him.
Was kity then that the prosecutor had not presented the detainer to the judge?
That’s why Mumford was objecting, as he was professionally required to do.The judge had no jurisdiction of record to remand Bundy into federal custody.
And Mumford should not have been arrested in court, there was no contempt finding, Bundy was not a fugitive, and Mumford was being an advocate.
Simply jack booted thugism in a venue where due process is the rule. And you can bet that the US Marshals will pay for it, personally if need be.False arrest, false imprisonment, kidnapping, violation of the Constitutional right of due process. Its easily a multi million dollar civil case.
And I can hardly wait to watch them pay.
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.