Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: muawiyah

The supporters of the legislation say the law is to address a court ruling that citizens have “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.” IOW, irrespective of whatever case or reason for the ruling - as the ruling effects all cases.

If the reason for the legislation does not concern any particular case or situation, why should the legislation?

Are you saying the law *should* have some sections or provisions specifically for domestic disputes that isn’t covered in some other law?


410 posted on 06/15/2012 10:17:14 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies ]


To: D-fendr
The history of this particular law is INESCAPABLE and will show up in almost any defense argument ~ and what would that be perhaps? Well, that the cops were called and they didn't show up and he beat her to death or she shot him and if they'd gotten there it'd all been good so I want $100000000 from the taxpayers because the cops didn't show up.

The cops will defend themselves quite well against any charge that they could have shown up. Obviously the law doesn't require them to get involved. But the history takes things beyond that and tells us that THEY'D BEST NOT!

411 posted on 06/15/2012 10:53:27 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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