Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 142

Thread: Protests at a LEO's home.

  1. #111
    Site Supporter Erick Gelhaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Wasatch Front
    Quote Originally Posted by vcdgrips View Post
    "Grand Jury acquits the cops." I know I am being picky but legal terms have legal meanings and we should try to use them properly given what is at stake.
    A question for you - do you see a similar issue in re prosecutorial rulings on officer-involved shootings or citizen defensive uses of force where the prosecutor (at the county, state, or federal levels), rather than saying he/she is clearing the officer/citizen, now announces there was "insufficient evidence to pursue charges"?

    With the attempted shooting of the Wisconson officer over the weekend, when the mob targeted him at his significant other's home, this subject has an even worse turn.

  2. #112
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    USA

    Protests at a LEO's home.

    Quote Originally Posted by Erick Gelhaus View Post
    A question for you - do you see a similar issue in re prosecutorial rulings on officer-involved shootings or citizen defensive uses of force where the prosecutor (at the county, state, or federal levels), rather than saying he/she is clearing the officer/citizen, now announces there was "insufficient evidence to pursue charges"?
    I’m not DB, and you probably know this already, but prosecutors aren’t in the business of clearing people of wrongdoing; they’re in the business of prosecution. Therefore, when a prosecutor declines to bring charges, it’s not a stamp of approval vis-à-vis the conduct in question, but rather a finding that a prosecution isn’t likely enough to succeed. So, as “fuel for the flames” of public furor as a statement like "insufficient evidence to pursue charges" can be/seem, it’s quite in accordance with the prosecutor’s role.

    Somewhat similarly, a petit jury doesn’t find someone “innocent”, it finds someone “not guilty” (if things go the defendant’s way). It’s not a moral exoneration, just a finding that within the established rules, the law can’t sanction this person for this act.

    I’m now quite sure that you know all this, but perhaps it will be illuminating for someone else.
    Last edited by Le Français; 08-10-2020 at 08:24 PM.

  3. #113
    Site Supporter Erick Gelhaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Wasatch Front
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Français View Post
    I’m not DB, and you probably know this already, but prosecutors aren’t in the business of clearing people of wrongdoing; they’re in the business of prosecution. Therefore, when a prosecutor declines to bring charges, it’s not a stamp of approval vis-à-vis the conduct in question, but rather a finding that a prosecution isn’t likely enough to succeed.
    I was not asking DB, I'm asking a current prosecutor about a change in verbiage by those in his field. I wanted to see if he observed a parallel between this and the perspective he raised.

  4. #114
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Erick Gelhaus View Post
    I was not asking DB, I'm asking a current prosecutor about a change in verbiage by those in his field. I wanted to see if he observed a parallel between this and the perspective he raised.
    Yeah, vcdgrips has the initials DB in real life, in addition to several other notable accomplishments.

  5. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by 0ddl0t View Post
    Okay, take for instance the conflict between neighbors and demonstrators:

    If the neighbors are merely disturbed by the presence of strangers conducting themselves in a lawful manner, then the neighbors are demanding something they have not earned.

    If the demonstrators are unlawfully detaining neighbors or making too much noise or damaging property, they are demanding what they have not earned.


    When weighing whether a particular policy is fair, I'm fond of Carl Jacobi's maxim "man muss immer umkehren" (invert, always invert). If you want to outlaw people protesting in front of private residences, are you also prepared to outlaw cheering crowds welcoming home a war hero? If not, then you are really banning the content rather than manner of speech...
    You keep referring to people conducting themselves in a lawful manner through out your various posts. I'm not sure if we simply have a fundamental misunderstanding of what lawful is or you're just not interested in the specific topic that is being discussed and just want to talk generalities. Generally speaking, not many here will complain at people acting in a lawful manner while they are protesting. You can actually protest without breaking a law. You can walk up and down the sidewalks of the neighborhood in question and hold your signs, make speeches... Seriously doubt that folks will get too upset with that till the break-ing of laws starts. You know trespassing, illegally carrying guns, making threats while carrying guns, blocking roads...

    Specifically in this instance, the "protestors" have not earned the right to block a public road. Therefore, they are not acting in a lawful manner, hence they are not protestors, but criminals. AFAIK, it is NOT legal to open carry loaded long gun at a political protest so they may well be breaking that law as well. AFAIK it is not legal to to go about threatening people with guns so they are not protestors but criminals. In this instance.

    It is actually possible to believe in the 1A while simultaneously believing that other people have rights as well. They are NOT mutually exclusive.

    Quote Originally Posted by revchuck38 View Post
    So the strangers have a right to blockade a public road but the neighbors wanting to use the road to drive home have no right to do so? How does one earn the right to use a public road?
    Pretty much being the guy with an AK/AR while the others have no AK/AR, earns you king of the hill status. Its not really earning, but more taking cause you know peaceful protestors and shit...

  6. #116
    Site Supporter 0ddl0t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Jefferson
    Quote Originally Posted by TAZ View Post
    You keep referring to people conducting themselves in a lawful manner through out your various posts. I'm not sure if we simply have a fundamental misunderstanding of what lawful is or you're just not interested in the specific topic that is being discussed and just want to talk generalities.
    I'm speaking generally in opposition to what I perceive as selective outrage against armed (liberal) protestors and to the belief that (lawful) protests in front of (officers') homes should be illegal.

  7. #117
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Midwest
    From EG

    "A question for you - do you see a similar issue in re prosecutorial rulings on officer-involved shootings or citizen defensive uses of force where the prosecutor (at the county, state, or federal levels), rather than saying he/she is clearing the officer/citizen, now announces there was "insufficient evidence to pursue charges"?

    Historically, from my perception, the tree just fell in the woods re both officers and citizens. The vast majority of the time, no announcement at all. The occasional, " no charges are expected v John Q Public but we would remind those not to take the law into their own hand because it can be dangerous etc."

    It is a matter of public record that a KCPD Officer was recently charged by the Jackson County Prosecutor's Office (KC proper south of the Missouri River/eastward including the City of Independence) with involuntary
    manslaughter during an OIC. It is a matter of public record that the PD declined to prepare a probable cause statement such that the case had to be presented to a Grand Jury.
    I cannot comment on the specifics of the case as I know and have worked with multiple individuals from both the KCPD and the JCPO.

    It is a matter of public record that a similar statement as you outlined above was recently issued by the ST. Louis County Prosecutor ( the area immediately surrounding the City of St. Louis) re the officer that was involved in the Michael Brown/Ferguson shooting.

  8. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by 0ddl0t View Post
    I'm speaking generally in opposition to what is outrage against armed (liberal) protestors breaking multiple laws and to the belief that (unlawful) protests in front of (officers') homes is illegal.
    Looky here. When I do this, it appears you're communicating honestly.

  9. #119
    Modding this sack of shit BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by 0ddl0t View Post
    I'm speaking generally in opposition to what I perceive as selective outrage against armed (liberal) protestors and to the belief that (lawful) protests in front of (officers') homes should be illegal.
    Can you provide an example of this sort of lawful protest occurring? if you're speaking in general, you should be able to provide and discuss specific examples of the behavior.

    No?

    Then we're dealing with the mob that Blyes (Mather, by the way, not Martin and a Loyalist) and Theophilus Lillie were speaking out against when your quote above was allegedly uttered at the joint burial of those mob members at the Boston Massacre.

    Back to modern day, where Blyes and his ideals lost and we no longer have a monarchy to rule us for our own good but instead have a say in how our society runs without resort to violence:

    If making someone feel threatened is the hallmark of a mob, and if "the masses" can be tyrannical, why are you so supportive of mob rule and the notion that people should be threatened (counter ot the Blyes quote you made)? Why do should we tolerate, or make lawful and protect, the right of a group to intimidate and harass an individual for a prior lawful act or different opinion? Protesting ideas and decisions =/= threats to an individual.

    It's illegal to threaten violence against POTUS, for example, and that's certainly never been deemed to be constitutional speech and the law overturned. Why?

    We do not allow armed groups of people to sit next to a jury in the courtroom or otherwise silently intimidate a jury. Why?

    If a group of armed people just standing around shouting at you isn't intimidating, what is it?

    What in the Constitution or case law indicates that threatening an individual for a prior lawful act is protected speech?


    How about actual answers this time instead of drive-bys? Or we can just admit that, like communism, your notions can't survive in reality and we can stop pretending "in general" isn't code for "hypothetical". Real liberatianism has never been tried?
    Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.

  10. #120
    banana republican blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mtns

    When You Get To A Fork In The Road, Take It

    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    ...Or we can just admit that, like communism, your notions can't survive in reality and we can stop pretending "in general" isn't code for "hypothetical"...
    "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. - Yogi Berra
    There's nothing civil about this war.

    Read: Harrison Bergeron

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •