No indictment in Eric Garner chokehold death

[cmdrjones]

The government is bound to protect our rights to self defense.

Within reason. For example, you do not have a right to self defense if you are committing a crime, IIRC. You can protect yourself if someone uses excessive force-- for example, say you're trying to rob someone's house, they wake up and decide they're going to chop you into kibble with a very big sword even after you put your hands up. In the ensuing melee, you manage to get the upper hand and injure the other guy, but you still get nicked by the police. You may be able to prove self-preservation and not have to deal with charges of assault and battery, but you will definitely go up the creek for the robbery because you're still guilty of that.

Likewise, if you are attending a protest, and it turns into a riot which you are a part of, trying to defend yourself against the police trying to arrest you is resisting arrest, which is a crime if the police have a legitimate reason to arrest you.

They have no authority to pass laws to restrict that which is a right granted by God and/or natural law.

Bzzt! Fail.

Rights are a human construction in order to create a better society. The question of whether or not there are 'rights' that exist outside humanity is a difficult one to answer. The fact of the matter is as far as the United States are concerned, the rights of its citizens and (most of) the people within its boundaries are listed in the Constitution and amended or expanded within the various laws of the nation, states, and municipalities therein. As far as those go... yeah, they kind of do have that authority, as long as the judicial system agrees that the laws do not abrogate the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

You have a right to bear arms, according to the Second Amendment. You cannot, however, bear arms in certain places, by law. That's just one example.

If rights are a human construction then why are they endowed by our creator which is enshrined in the declaration? You contradict yourself. Even the courts don't have the right to remove your rights otherwise interning Japanese Americans without due process would have been fine. THe examples you give are fine because the people exercising their rights to self defense have already violated someone else's rights. If I want to carry a Shotgun in public as part of my right to bear arms, then those laws restricting that are unjust. ANy agency that says: you can't defend yourself in our mall/Bank/Post Office" inherently takes the responsibility for defending me upon themselves. Forgive me if my 1st thought is "Fuck that!"

[General Brock]

To me, "don't start none, won't be none" IS the standard. I am not pro-cop, anti-cop, pro-black or anti-black. I am pro-constitution. Y'know why? Because it is the most inherently pro-freedom document ever created.

LOL. Thanks for the the laugh, I needed that. I can name off hand at least twenty actual documents that are more pro-freedom than the US constitution.

Haven't had much time to post, but if any of these 20 superior documents are supposed to be the supreme law of the land and taken seriously as such, that would be great.

The UN Charter is a really nice document, but I'm not sure if it was meant to have the same force of law as the U.S. Constitution, which is what cmdrjones may have meant.

Even the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) drew from the American example to codify the popular gains of their Revolution. Canada has a great Charter of Rights and Freedoms but those are circumscribed by a 'Notwithstanding Clause'. Its the inalienability of rights for people and cultural belief in enforcing this, which seems to set the American constitution apart. Some very oppressive countries have very nice bills of rights, which don't seem to matter except as examples of mass cognitive dissonance.

Police sources claim Garner had four-and-a-half packs of Newports on him, but looking at the video... I'm not sure if he could have kept them in his pockets in saleable condition the way he fit his pants, and there isn't a backback anywhere.

In New your City, it is a misdemeanor to resist arrest and it appears to stand independent of the validity of the arresting offense. This level of law is statutory, and the People use the Constitution to police statutes via courts and demands for better legislation.

Denying the right to resist has not been decisively challenged and lost at the level of the supreme court.

[cmdrjones]

Wait ... so you're saying a document that explicitly says black people are worth 3/5 of a white person is the most inherently pro-freedom document ever created? Hell, I'll give you the Bill of Rights free of charge but you're talking about a document that has had to repeatedly be rewritten once people realized it needed to be changed (see: the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments). Are you actually even remotely familiar with what is in the Constitution and what the history of the document (and democracy as a broader philosophical concept) actually is? Or are you too busy lying about your military experience again?

Yes. Because it CAN be amended. also, the 3/5ths compromise that you like to throw out there is an inherently ANTI-slavery measure, because it incentivizes slave holders to free their slaves and get 2/5th more representatives....
and lastly, nice attempt to disqualify, but I've made my case and I don't feel the need to provide documentation on military service to you or anyone else. FUCK OFF.

Are you willing to kill people over the date on which the President and Vice President assume power after an election? Because that's in your precious Constitution as well. Are you saying we should repeal that amendment if people aren't willing to fight over its continued existence?

Why exactly did you even link to that in the first place? It doesn't justify anything you said.

Anything that has to force of law has the potential to result in dead people.... THAT's the giant point flying over your head. If there is a law against, say yard sales after august, then if someone is in violation of that law, and resists arrest, they may be killed, does that seem worth it to you? I'd say a high official violating the law and seizing power before the proper date MAY be a tad more of a reason to arrest him than someone engaging in commerce on their own property without a permit.
AS for the link.... I was trying to help you learn something.

[cmdrjones]

I don't think we need large numbers of angry protesters with guns confronting police with guns. That sounds like a recipe for a blood bath, which might discredit the protesters and be used to justify a crackdown. If that happened, our options would be to return to a more oppressive version of the status quo or fight a civil war. And anyone who wants that can go fuck themselves.

It's not a matter of WANTING it, genius. Right now the debate is over inevitability vs imminenence.
BTW, how many citizens do the militarized police get to kill before it's ok to confront them?

If you don't want a civil war, why endorse a course of action that might cause it?

And people are confronting the police. What do you think the protests are? Do you think resistance doesn't count if it doesn't involve guns?

As for the question of weather you're a racist, I don't know if you are but it wouldn't surprise me. Racism and Right wing idiocy such as yours' often march hand in hand.

Good question: Because the danger of NOT having the confrontation may be far worse. For example: Do you think it was better that Britain had the confrontation over slavery and banned it without violence in 1833 or should they have fought it out like we did?

I think THESE protests are an overreaction about one mans death and are being whipped into a frenzy by opportunists and are mainly tragic and stupid.... however, I support the rights of the people, even the "dumb" ones.
Resistance counts if it doesn't involve guns, it's probably second best, next to non-violent passive resistance, when your opponent is civilized of course.

[cmdrjones]

And which 'right granted by God' actually mentions firearms? Not that I'm sure I like the basic idea anyway given the stuff God pulled in the OT.

It doesn't mention firearms, but the second amendment mentions "arms" it just happens that the arms of the day include the AR-15 and the AK-47. I'm sorry the OT scares you, but remember, ol Jesus fulfilled the old law and brought the Gospel, so we don't NEED to adhere to every Jot and tittle to get to heaven.

[cmdrjones]

To me, "don't start none, won't be none" IS the standard. I am not pro-cop, anti-cop, pro-black or anti-black. I am pro-constitution. Y'know why? Because it is the most inherently pro-freedom document ever created.

LOL. Thanks for the the laugh, I needed that. I can name off hand at least twenty actual documents that are more pro-freedom than the US constitution.

Haven't had much time to post, but if any of these 20 superior documents are supposed to be the supreme law of the land and taken seriously as such, that would be great.

The UN Charter is a really nice document, but I'm not sure if it was meant to have the same force of law as the U.S. Constitution, which is what cmdrjones may have meant.

Even the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) drew from the American example to codify the popular gains of their Revolution. Canada has a great Charter of Rights and Freedoms but those are circumscribed by a 'Notwithstanding Clause'. Its the inalienability of rights for people and cultural belief in enforcing this, which seems to set the American constitution apart. Some very oppressive countries have very nice bills of rights, which don't seem to matter except as examples of mass cognitive dissonance.

Police sources claim Garner had four-and-a-half packs of Newports on him, but looking at the video... I'm not sure if he could have kept them in his pockets in saleable condition the way he fit his pants, and there isn't a backback anywhere.

In New your City, it is a misdemeanor to resist arrest and it appears to stand independent of the validity of the arresting offense. This level of law is statutory, and the People use the Constitution to police statutes via courts and demands for better legislation.

Denying the right to resist has not been decisively challenged and lost at the level of the supreme court.

This forum needs a goddam upvote button

[Batman]

And which 'right granted by God' actually mentions firearms? Not that I'm sure I like the basic idea anyway given the stuff God pulled in the OT.

It doesn't mention firearms, but the second amendment mentions "arms" it just happens that the arms of the day include the AR-15 and the AK-47.

So you admit that neither 'rights granted by God' nor the Constitution actually mention firearms.

I'm sorry the OT scares you, but remember, ol Jesus fulfilled the old law and brought the Gospel, so we don't NEED to adhere to every Jot and tittle to get to heaven.

So you basically pick and choose which parts of the gospel you like. Doesn't sound all that devoted Christian to me...

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yeah, right, what? How the hell can it 'not' be allowed to resist an unlawful arrest? Unless the definition of 'unlawful' has been redifined while I wasn't looking 'unlawful' means 'has no legal basis'. Basically, from a legal standpoint, the officers trying this are kidnapping you. Which was a crime last time I checked.

Because the courts that have ruled on this subject have made this decision on two grounds;

1 - First, there were better alternative means of resolving the issue such as hearing it out in court.

2 - Resistance would likely result in greater injury to the citizen without preventing the arrest.

[Batman]

I'm admittedly no expert on what the US currently uses instead of a justice system but to me, 'unlawful' means 'unlawful'. As in, yep, definitely illegal. Court hearings and trying to avoid any more damage is for when the legal standing of those arrests is still in doubt.

[cmdrjones]

And which 'right granted by God' actually mentions firearms? Not that I'm sure I like the basic idea anyway given the stuff God pulled in the OT.

It doesn't mention firearms, but the second amendment mentions "arms" it just happens that the arms of the day include the AR-15 and the AK-47.

So you admit that neither 'rights granted by God' nor the Constitution actually mention firearms.

I'm sorry the OT scares you, but remember, ol Jesus fulfilled the old law and brought the Gospel, so we don't NEED to adhere to every Jot and tittle to get to heaven.

So you basically pick and choose which parts of the gospel you like. Doesn't sound all that devoted Christian to me...

As for mentioning firearms, I reiterate.... "arms" at the time, and today include firearms, and if it is necessary to maintain a free state by bearing swords, flamers, micro-nukes, power armor, Lightsabers, phaser, Bat'leths or Bolos, those will be fine.

I don't pick and choose, but I recognize the concept of Theosis, that people aren't perfect, and that they never will be. To obey the OT is fine, but not necessary hence why I capitalized the word "NEED"

[cmdrjones]

I'm admittedly no expert on what the US currently uses instead of a justice system but to me, 'unlawful' means 'unlawful'. As in, yep, definitely illegal. Court hearings and trying to avoid any more damage is for when the legal standing of those arrests is still in doubt.

Strangely enough, I'm with you on this one. I recognize the rationale that the courts have made that resisting unlawful arrest is still "illegal" if it will reasonably result in more damage/death than simply submitting will to let it be sorted out later... but an authority that is engaging in unlawful arrest on a regular basis probably shouldn't be trusted to "sort it all out" later on.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I'm admittedly no expert on what the US currently uses instead of a justice system but to me, 'unlawful' means 'unlawful'. As in, yep, definitely illegal. Court hearings and trying to avoid any more damage is for when the legal standing of those arrests is still in doubt.

What about my post makes you think unlawful has a different meaning in the United States?

The reasoning for the decision by the courts is right there for you to discuss but instead you pretend there is some sort of semantic issue. Fucking hell, Batman.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I'm admittedly no expert on what the US currently uses instead of a justice system but to me, 'unlawful' means 'unlawful'. As in, yep, definitely illegal. Court hearings and trying to avoid any more damage is for when the legal standing of those arrests is still in doubt.

Strangely enough, I'm with you on this one. I recognize the rationale that the courts have made that resisting unlawful arrest is still "illegal" if it will reasonably result in more damage/death than simply submitting will to let it be sorted out later... but an authority that is engaging in unlawful arrest on a regular basis probably shouldn't be trusted to "sort it all out" later on.

I suppose this is true if the sorting out later on proves to be ineffective but if it is effective then I highly doubt any law enforcement organization could afford to continue making unlawful arrests.

[Batman]

Um-why, exactly should they be allowed to make unlawful arrests? What with them being the people who are supposed to, you know, enforce the law?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yes. Because it CAN be amended.

So you admit that, over time, due to broad cultural, societal, and technological shifts, we may feel the need to change the Constitution, with increasing awareness of its imperfections? You admit that by definition it is not and never can be a perfect document, because there will always be a need for change.

YET you are simultaneously trying to adhere to a literalist interpretation of the Constitution as if it were the writ of God or the little Jesus fish or whatever. How can you possibly reconcile these two viewpoints in any sort of logical fashion?

Here's a hypothetical for you. An impossible situation, mind you. But I want you to address this honestly (which, I know, is tough for you, but just try, will you?):

Let's say next year, a constitutional amendment is suddenly passed that enacts some sort of gun control measure and enshrines it as law. Let's say ... banning civilian assault rifles or something extreme like that. Based on what you have said in this thread, you personally consider it a natural moral right of yours to own an assault rifle. You would no doubt complain loudly and non-stop to anyone who would listen about what a terrible amendment this was, and blah blah blah. Yet, you also cite the Constitution as a moral document, and in fact cite its ability to change the law in response to changing times as the very basis of its moral nature. If that amendment passed, you would be morally obligated to adopt that position, if the Constitution were truly such a source of your morality as you have claimed in this thread. How do you reconcile this contradiction?

It sounds less like you actually have a detailed understanding of the Constitution, its history, and how it relates to current U.S. law and rationally adhere to its moral structure and more like you are using it as a convenient symbol and umbrella for your own personal preferences.

also, the 3/5ths compromise that you like to throw out there is an inherently ANTI-slavery measure, because it incentivizes slave holders to free their slaves and get 2/5th more representatives....

So you are saying you have no moral problem with treating black people as 3/5 of a human being? Do you honestly not perceive that as racist?

and lastly, nice attempt to disqualify, but I've made my case and I don't feel the need to provide documentation on military service to you or anyone else. FUCK OFF.

You didn't make your case, you were caught lying and you ran off from the thread (never to return), while quietly posting in other threads hoping that we would all forget what you did.

Anything that has to force of law has the potential to result in dead people.... THAT's the giant point flying over your head. If there is a law against, say yard sales after august, then if someone is in violation of that law, and resists arrest, they may be killed, does that seem worth it to you?

It doesn't. Luckily for me, that situation doesn't exist in reality, only within the dimensions of your tortured brain. Have you ever even heard of the term "excessive force"?

I'd say a high official violating the law and seizing power before the proper date MAY be a tad more of a reason to arrest him than someone engaging in commerce on their own property without a permit.

Jesus Christ, you pretty spectacularly missed the point of my post, there, didn't you, Colonel Klink? Let me abstract it a bit for you: are you willing to kill people over, say, points of parliamentary procedure?

AS for the link.... I was trying to help you learn something.

What could I possibly have learned at that link? It didn't substantiate your point, it repeated it using different words.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Um-why, exactly should they be allowed to make unlawful arrests? What with them being the people who are supposed to, you know, enforce the law?

Two reasons...maybe you missed them

1 - First, there were better alternative means of resolving the issue such as hearing it out in court.

2 - Resistance would likely result in greater injury to the citizen without preventing the arrest.

Sounds like the second reason makes a lot of sense.

EDIT - You really need to address these two reasons listed by the court if you want to try and argue that this is wrong or I guess you can continue with semantics and appeals to emotions. I know I know they are suppose to serve and protect but Batman what the fuck does that have to do with avoiding injury?

[Elheru Aran]

If rights are a human construction then why are they endowed by our creator which is enshrined in the declaration? You contradict yourself.

Your failure here is assuming that our rights come from our 'creator'. The people who wrote the Declaration believed in one, and believed that their rights derived from him. It was a sentiment of the time, and one that is not reflected in the Constitution apart from the occasional 'in the year of our lord', which is a contemporary form and no indication of belief or disbelief. And while the Declaration of Independence is a lovely document, it does not have legal standing as it has been superseded by the Constitution. It does form a basis for a number of legal decisions upon Constitutional issues, but those are irrelevant to our discussion as the rights we currently have are derived from the Bill of Rights, not the Declaration of Independence.

Even the courts don't have the right to remove your rights otherwise interning Japanese Americans without due process would have been fine.

What do you think a prison sentence is? Removal of the right to liberty, perhaps? Among other things. The internment of Japanese-Americans was certainly injust, probably illegal, and eventually recognized as such; it's a regrettable example of prejudicial action by the nation. If an individual breaks the law, however, they lose their rights.

If I want to carry a Shotgun in public as part of my right to bear arms, then those laws restricting that are unjust. ANy agency that says: you can't defend yourself in our mall/Bank/Post Office" inherently takes the responsibility for defending me upon themselves. Forgive me if my 1st thought is "Fuck that!"

Certainly open carry is legal... unless you start doing something stupid with it, such as threatening police officers in the execution of their duties. That's why armed protestors is a stupid idea, it's only going to result in an even bigger flap than the original protest was. As for inside buildings: If it's private property, the proprietors of that building have a right to regulate what happens inside their property. If it's a government office and it's banned in your state (it's banned in all federal buildings, IIRC), you're breaking the law, regardless of what you think your rights are. There are occasional exemptions for CCW permit holders and what not, but I don't care to take the time to list them. You are free to challenge the ban in court, of course... it's your liberty and property to waste. The fact of the matter is that the law is constructed to (theoretically) protect your rights. In breaking the law, you forfeit your rights and become a criminal. It's up to you.

[Batman]

As for mentioning firearms, I reiterate.... "arms" at the time, and today include firearms,

Because...you say so. It says 'arms', nothing more, in a document written at a time when firearms were of decidedly limited utility.Onus to prove that includes firearms is on 'you'.

and if it is necessary to maintain a free state by bearing swords, flamers, micro-nukes, power armor, Lightsabers, phaser, Bat'leths or Bolos, those will be fine.

I absolutely don't hate to tell you but if you ever decide to rebel against the US government (probably for ridiculously stupid reasons) you're getting your ass handed to you so badly you'd wish they killed you. They:Nukes and tanks and drones and a majority of the population who thinks you're stark raving mad. You: A handful of guns.

[Batman]

Um-why, exactly should they be allowed to make unlawful arrests? What with them being the people who are supposed to, you know, enforce the law?

Two reasons...maybe you missed them
1 - First, there were better alternative means of resolving the issue such as hearing it out in court.
2 - Resistance would likely result in greater injury to the citizen without preventing the arrest.
Sounds like the second reason makes a lot of sense.
EDIT - You really need to address these two reasons listed by the court if you want to try and argue that this is wrong or I guess you can continue with semantics and appeals to emotions. I know I know they are suppose to serve and protect but Batman what the fuck does that have to do with avoiding injury?

You could easily avoid injury by not, you know, carrying out an unlawful arrest?
You're supposed to be a LEO. And yet you seem to be advocating that the police shouldn't be required to abide by the law.

[cmdrjones]

As for mentioning firearms, I reiterate.... "arms" at the time, and today include firearms,

Because...you say so. It says 'arms', nothing more, in a document written at a time when firearms were of decidedly limited utility.Onus to prove that includes firearms is on 'you'.

and if it is necessary to maintain a free state by bearing swords, flamers, micro-nukes, power armor, Lightsabers, phaser, Bat'leths or Bolos, those will be fine.

I absolutely don't hate to tell you but if you ever decide to rebel against the US government (probably for ridiculously stupid reasons) you're getting your ass handed to you so badly you'd wish they killed you. They:Nukes and tanks and drones and a majority of the population who thinks you're stark raving mad. You: A handful of guns.

#1 how can you maintain a free state if you have no access to the same weaponry as that of the standing army and/or potential opponents? PS firearms are a SUBSET of arms.... right?

#2 I'd argue with your breakdown, but I agree. The people who established the United States were considered stark raving mad too.

Also, if you only willing to fight if you have a guaranteed chance of success... you might be a bit of a bitch.

[Batman]

Yup. Germany is only a free democracy because everybody has free access to nukes and tank battallions and stuff.

[Flagg]

As for mentioning firearms, I reiterate.... "arms" at the time, and today include firearms,

Because...you say so. It says 'arms', nothing more, in a document written at a time when firearms were of decidedly limited utility.Onus to prove that includes firearms is on 'you'.

and if it is necessary to maintain a free state by bearing swords, flamers, micro-nukes, power armor, Lightsabers, phaser, Bat'leths or Bolos, those will be fine.

I absolutely don't hate to tell you but if you ever decide to rebel against the US government (probably for ridiculously stupid reasons) you're getting your ass handed to you so badly you'd wish they killed you. They:Nukes and tanks and drones and a majority of the population who thinks you're stark raving mad. You: A handful of guns.

And here, in the wilds, we see the fuckt**ds in their mating ritual...

Batman, I don't hate to point out to your dumbass that "arms" at the time usually meant anything from a dagger to a massive shore cannon. So guns were most assuredly considered "arms" when the word was added to the constitution. As cases came before the SCOTUS that right was interpreted and reinterpreted and will be again I'm sure. But the main thing they have done as time has passed on is limit the ability for civilians to lawfully obtain and possess weapons that can kill lots of innocent people.

[cmdrjones]

Yup. Germany is only a free democracy because everybody has free access to nukes and tank battallions and stuff.

The soviet union had democracy too.
Also, if the government of Germany becomes oppressive, do the people reserve the right to remove it?
Oh yeah, they don't.

[Kon_El]

As for mentioning firearms, I reiterate.... "arms" at the time, and today include firearms,

Because...you say so. It says 'arms', nothing more, in a document written at a time when firearms were of decidedly limited utility.Onus to prove that includes firearms is on 'you'.

Firearms are a subcategory of arms. By what logic would they not be included?

[Flagg]

Yup. Germany is only a free democracy because everybody has free access to nukes and tank battallions and stuff.

The soviet union had democracy too.
Also, if the government of Germany becomes oppressive, do the people reserve the right to remove it?
Oh yeah, they don't.

Listen dude, you can play barely believably stupid internet tough guy or meta barely believably stupid internet tough guy (I hope for the latter) all you want, but the only organization in the USA with the "right" aka "capability" to overthrow the Government of the USA are the Armed Forces of the USA. Period.