- Joined
- Sep 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,463
- Reaction score
- 7,252
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
LOL.
We get it, you hate the police.
But this thread isn't about the police.........................
It doesn't matter to me if the guy suing is a convict or not... we should always be vigilant that our authorities are not overstepping or abusing their powers. I am shocked to see people here saying that convicts should have no right to raise complaints or take officers to court. Just what kind of dictatorship do you want us to live in? I find such claims laughable.... just like how cops in various districts are now considering video cameras to be "weapons". If you have nothing to hide and you're just doing your job, then a camera won't make a difference.
If there are abuses and there is evidence, it should be brought up.
LOL.
We get it, you hate the police.
But this thread isn't about the police.........................
Especially since when they caught up to him he was butt ass naked and still had cocaine on him.As far as a civil trial.... most juries wouldn't reward a crook jack ****.
Well, honestly; it was a non-violent crime, and I don't think it's the place of random citizens to beat and injure him.
He had not been proven guilty in a court of law.
If he was resisting arrest and the police had to rough him up in order to take him down, that's one thing. They are within their rights to do so, I suppose. Whatever it takes to subdue him.
But I think it sets a bad precedent for the legal system to condone citizens beating other citizens with impunity, simply because they perceive them to be in the act of committing a property crime.
I feel the judge probably will not rule in favor of this plaintiff, but I think he/she should, if only to discourage citizens from this sort of vigilantism in the future.
There's a lot we don't know, such as how badly the plaintiff was injured.
We get it, you don't know how to read.
You keep throwing up the statutes.
There is one problem with this.
Who decides when to prosecute a case? Why the district attorney's office of course.
Most district attorney's also won't prosecute because they don't want to discourage people from defending themselves.
It would have to be an extreme case, not a case of a guy sitting on an escaping felon and the felon having some broken ribs in the process.
As far as a civil trial.... most juries wouldn't reward a crook jack ****.
Re D.A.'s? You might be interested in this:A federal jury found Tuesday that a southern Arizona rancher didn’t violate the civil rights of a group of illegal immigrants who claimed that he detained them at gunpoint in 2004.
The eight-member civil jury also found Roger Barnett wasn’t liable on claims of battery and false imprisonment.
But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages — $60,000 of which were punitive.Barnett declined to comment afterward, but one of his attorneys, David Hardy, said the plaintiffs lost on the bulk of their claims and that Barnett has a good basis for appeal on the two counts on which he lost.
In the United States, people making citizen arrests are subject to "strict liability" -- a legal doctrine in which someone is held personally responsible for the damages caused by their actions, regardless of their intentions or personal fault. Read more: What are Citizen's Arrest Requirements? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6319479_citizen_s-arrest-requirements_.html#ixzz0vURQkUrIIt’s one of the cases that gets ordinary people all riled up. A chronic criminal, Anthony Bennett, who some say stole from Chinatown stores for years finally got caught. A hard-working store owner, Mr. Chen, aided by two associates, witnessed a theft, confronted the culprit an hour later and then caught him, tied his hands, put him in a truck and called the police. And what do the cops end up doing? They charge Mr. Chen with assault, kidnapping, unlawful confinement, and carrying concealed weapons. The last charge is for having a box cutter.
But the cops had a lawful reason to arrest Mr. Chen. If citizens see crime in progress on their property, they can catch criminals. But Mr. Chen went after Mr. Bennett an hour after the theft. Mr. Chen and his two associates chased Mr. Bennett.
Well, honestly; it was a non-violent crime, and I don't think it's the place of random citizens to beat and injure him.
He had not been proven guilty in a court of law.
If he was resisting arrest and the police had to rough him up in order to take him down, that's one thing. They are within their rights to do so, I suppose. Whatever it takes to subdue him.
But I think it sets a bad precedent for the legal system to condone citizens beating other citizens with impunity, simply because they perceive them to be in the act of committing a property crime.
I feel the judge probably will not rule in favor of this plaintiff, but I think he/she should, if only to discourage citizens from this sort of vigilantism in the future.
There's a lot we don't know, such as how badly the plaintiff was injured.
Of course it wasn't a victimless crime.
It was a non-violent property crime.
I see no reason for random citizens to respond to non-violent crimes with violence, if that is in fact what they did.
I see no reason for the police to respond to non-violent crimes with violence, either, although I understand it is necessary for them to use whatever force is necessary to take the suspect into custody.
So what you going to do, sit him down with a cup of coffee and ask him to wait for the Police?
Ya see this is why I always keep a couple of rocks of crack in my house. Sit him down and let 'em smoke till the cops show....:mrgreen:
Ya see this is why I always keep a couple of rocks of crack in my house. Sit him down and let 'em smoke till the cops show....:mrgreen:
Until you get busted for possession of crack cocaine. And then the government can take all your **** too.
I doubt that will happen, and it wouldn't surprise me if he won.
The thief most likely would have gotten away if no one helped. We assisted in detaining the individual till the police arrived. IMO, it was the correct thing to do as well as it was the right thing for others to help detain the thief in the original post. For those that think on LE should get involved in detaining suspects, what happened to neighbor helping neighbor in this country?
You have the right to use it to apprehend someone; you don't have the right to beat the crap out of them once they are subdued.
Frankly, you beat the **** outta them before the cuffs are on. Once the cuffs are on, you back off
No, that's what they do in countries where people don't have rights. Maybe you might want to move there?
1. This is obviously a ridiculous case that will be thrown out. Prisoners do this kind of thing all the time, since they've got nothing to lose and nothing else to do while they're sitting there. 99.99% of all these cases die because they're frivolous. They grab the public attention though because of the fact that they are outrageous and then people do like the OP did and start blaming lawyers even though no lawyer is involved.
2. That doesn't mean that overwhelming force is allowable when you stop a thief. While the facts in this case do not seem to be outrageous (especially since the guy is asking for "mental damage" awards -- aw, the poor thief), it is not hard to imagine a situation where someone uses too much force. You have the right to use it to apprehend someone; you don't have the right to beat the crap out of them once they are subdued.
3. The idea that there should be an extra punishment for exercising his Constitutional rights is well, frankly unAmerican.
2. you don't have the right to beat the crap out of them once they are subdued.
1. This is obviously a ridiculous case that will be thrown out. Prisoners do this kind of thing all the time, since they've got nothing to lose and nothing else to do while they're sitting there. 99.99% of all these cases die because they're frivolous. They grab the public attention though because of the fact that they are outrageous and then people do like the OP did and start blaming lawyers even though no lawyer is involved.
2. That doesn't mean that overwhelming force is allowable when you stop a thief. While the facts in this case do not seem to be outrageous (especially since the guy is asking for "mental damage" awards -- aw, the poor thief), it is not hard to imagine a situation where someone uses too much force. You have the right to use it to apprehend someone; you don't have the right to beat the crap out of them once they are subdued.
3. The idea that there should be an extra punishment for exercising his Constitutional rights is well, frankly unAmerican.
OMFG are you serious?
Your accusing me of not knowing how to read when you jump into a thread about citizens and start accusing the cops of abuse and then follow it up by going COMPLETELY off topic about the video camera stupidity in your attempt to deamonize the police furthur.....
Yet you accuse ME of not being able to read? Out-****ing-standing! I am totally blown away!
They grab the public attention though because of the fact that they are outrageous and then people do like the OP did and start blaming lawyers even though no lawyer is involved.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?