Reply With Quote
Arrest him. If the protester broke the law, then that's all that's needed.
There's no place for a police officer to be shoving and pushing people unless he's making an arrest.
OK, what should they have done? Use pepper spray?
Arrest him. If the protester broke the law, then that's all that's needed.
There's no place for a police officer to be shoving and pushing people unless he's making an arrest.
So... the pushing is OK when there is an arrest? Why not then allow for the less severe avenue of not having an arrest o0n someone's record?
The pushing is ok when it's part of an arrest. If somebody is being unruly, or trying to escape, it's obvious that police officers are allowed to use force as part of conducting their duties.
If a cop pushes and shoves somebody for no reason, that's called police brutality. Police officers are held to a higher standard due to the fact that they are stewards of the public trust.
I see. So forcible moving someone who is in violation of the law, is wrong, unless they back it up with the paperwork of the arrest.
OK. Gotcha. I see there is no going easy with you. It's all or nothing.
This makes no logical sense. If somebody is in violation of the law, then A) warn him, or B) arrest him. There's no C) use arbitrary violence on them.
The reason there's no C is that the cop would then be breaking the law himself.
I don't know how much more I can dumb it down for you.
Ok, I see people heading strait towards the cops, and they push back. Who is initiation what? Are the police suppose to step back? At about 2:40, they do arrest a guy, and he is resisting. At 3:04, it cuts into a guy being pushed. He keeps charging the police off the sidewalk and they keep pushing. If you ask me, the police are rather well restrained for the aggressive nature of the crowd. Nothing peaceful about them when they are placing themselves into the police officers faces. Now in the video Dan posts in #47, yes, the police hit the guy. That's after the guy hit the officer first.
First of all, it's 'straight', not 'strait'. Second, it's 'initiating', not 'initiation'.
Onto the topic, the police is supposed to warn them or arrest them.
There is no pushing and shoving for a cop, then backing down. When he crossed that line, the arrest has to follow.
Law enforcement is granted the power to apply force and remove cons utional privileges when lawfully justified.
While police has the la ude to determine whether an arrest must happen or not, they don't have the la ude to decide to use violence unlawfully.
When it comes to the 4th Amendment its either being followed or not.
Ok, so what is lawfully justifies under New York law?
I didn't read the whole thing yet, but this looks like it is well researched:
Understanding the Legal Ramifications of Using Physical Force
You might look up the "prevent or terminate" argument.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 10-15-2011 at 04:06 AM.
What you linked doesn't include police officers. /facepalm
Here's the entire Article 35:
http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/we...rk/nyart35.htm
Let me highlight for you, so you don't get lost:
Section 35.30 Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape
1. A police officer or a peace officer, in the course of effecting or attempting to effect an arrest, or of preventing or attempting to prevent the escape from custody, of a person whom he reasonably believes to have committed an offense, may use physical force when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect the arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody, or to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force;
2. The fact that a police officer or a peace officer is justified in using deadly physical force under cir stances prescribed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subdivision one does not cons ute justification for reckless conduct by such police officer or peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom he is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody.
lol using martial arts links
lol thinking civilians and cops on duty are held to the same standard
The law only covers a few specific examples and does not make it illegal for police to use nonviolent physical force. By nonviolent, I mean the pushing. It is not the same as striking.
Physical Abuse
Go push a cop and find out if you're not charged with assault.
lol nonviolent physical force
dumbass
17 Citibank customers arrested for trying to close their accounts
Bank of America closed their doors when people went in to close their accounts..
More video from the citibank arrests..
Raise your voice!
Power to the people!
LOL...
That first video, they locked the doors so no one else can come in because they are protesting inside the bank, and not leaving. They stopped more protesters from coming in. They are not trying to close their accounts. They are unlawfully trespassing.
The woman removed was told she could not go inside, and she refused to move on. Who knows why they restrained her, not necessarily caught on tape.
Here's what was going on inside:
I suspect the other videos you posted will be similar disregard for the law.
LOL...
Dan, watched the start of the second. Of courses they are going to get arrested for interrupting a business inside the premises.
Looks like they left the building to me, besides even if these were protestors they were also Citibank customers....what gives Citibank the right to arrest customers just because they were also protestors? Don't banks work for customers? Isn't that the way its supposed to work?....now in light of the protest that targeted this specific citibank, I can understand security ushering these girls out and asking them to return someday without signs if they wanted to close their accounts..but arrested?
(besides, your authoritarian side is giving you away with every stupid argument you make - your no libertarian)
30 versus 1
You didn't watch the video I posted, did you? It was the same incident as your first video. They were protesting inside. That's why the doors were locked and they were arrested. The woman outside, we didn't see everything that happened, but she was protesting, and said she was trying to get inside.
Looks like they left the building to me, besides even if these were protestors they were also Citibank customers....what gives Citibank the right to arrest customers just because they were also protestors? Don't banks work for customers? Isn't that the way its supposed to work?....now in light of the protest that targeted this specific citibank, I can understand security ushering these girls out and asking them to return someday without signs if they wanted to close their accounts..but arrested?
(besides, your authoritarian side is giving you away with every stupid argument you make - your no libertarian)
Grow a brain Dan.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
