I will agree there lol... FegsOriginally Posted by Drano
It's all hypothetical anyway. I hope it never comes to that, but it only takes a few rotten eggs to sour the issue and spoil it for the rest of us.
I will agree there lol... FegsIt's all hypothetical anyway. I hope it never comes to that, but it only takes a few rotten eggs to sour the issue and spoil it for the rest of us.
Presumption of innocence is a farce. If everybody were presumed innocent nobody would be arrested. The statement that you are innocent until proven guilty simply translates to getting your day in court rather than being incarcerated or executed on the spot. You still have to prove that the charges against you are false, or leave enough room for doubt so as not to be convicted.
No actually you dont have to prove shit. Its up to the state to prove it. Show evidence. Its up to the defense to fight the evidence. Its the reason why the prosecution gets to go first.
Certainly, the burden of proof falls on the prosecution, but what, exactly, is the defense fighting for if not to prove that the prosecution's allegations are false? You're splitting hairs.
And they wonder why many bikes run from cops... This cop gives all cops a bad name. Hope this was used in court to prosecute the officer.
Not really. A prosecution is built upon evidence that claims the defendant did what they say. A defense is built on attacking said evidence. Its actually two very different things.
I concede your point.There are instances where the prosecution fails to prove guilt, but failure to convict does not necessarily prove that the accused is innocent.
However, following the prosecution, it lies to the defense to refute them. The defense attempts to disprove (prove false) the evidence and witness testimonies presented by the prosecution with evidence and testimonies of their own. It is the same game played to a different end.
proof (prf)n.1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2. a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
3. a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.
5. Law The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.
6. The alcoholic strength of a liquor, expressed by a number that is twice the percentage by volume of alcohol present.
7. Printing a. A trial sheet of printed material that is made to be checked and corrected. Also called proof sheet.
b. A trial impression of a plate, stone, or block taken at any of various stages in engraving.
8. a. A trial photographic print.
b. Any of a limited number of newly minted coins or medals struck as specimens and for collectors from a new die on a polished planchet.
9. Archaic Proven impenetrability: "I was clothed in Armor of proof" (John Bunyan).
That is why the prosecution should never go forward unless they are certain the evidence is the best. I hate the idea of killers going free because a cop or someone else fucked up and the guy gets to walk for life. The rules are setup for criminals to win but also and the most important part is that innocent people dont get nailed for someone elses crimes. I forget who said it but the quote is it is better to let 100me guilty men go than see one innocent man be convicted. Or something like that. Lol
The quote comes from Benjamin Franklin but the principle goes all the way back to the Bible. You worded it like it is most commonly quoted but the exact quote is:
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved. "
What about Plummer vs State? "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary."
Or how about John Bad Elk vs U.S. in which that statement was upheld by the Supreme Court? In that case the court said “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
Have owned: '01 Volusia
Currently own: '05 Z750S
Well you go ahead and try that. I think the problem you're going to run into is when you think an arrest is unlawful, but it's not. And the cops don't lose.
How about the video i showed from the springs showing cops illegally detaining a man?
Do you really think that because most police forces have "do not pursue" policies in regards to sport bikes that it somehow gives you the "right" to run? What if every sport bike rider runs? What do you think the law will do then?
Seriously, what happened to taking personal responsibility for wrong actions? If you are caught speeding, do you not deserve the ticket?
On the flip side, if a cop pulls you over and you were not doing something wrong, what exactly do you have to fear?
You fear what happened in this video.
You might not think it was wrong, but his department did. Wrong enough to suspend him for 38 days.
Hmmm. What do we have to fear? False arrest? Violence? Fake charges? How about murder?
Any numbee if crimes that police seem to enjoy doing.
I didn't see that one, again?
You dont remember the cops arresting the guy for open carry in a park and using a outdated cheat sheet?
Here you go sir.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobile...n_1790725.html
One of those rare homosexual gun-nuts, lol.
<Seinfeld> "Not that there's anything wrong with that."
.
'08 Yamaha R1 (black), mostly stock. Past bikes: '98 VFR-800 (red), '01 CBR-929RR (white/red), '05 Yamaha R6 (white), '08 Yamaha R1 (blue).
'94 Supra Turbo 6spd. (black), BUILT motor/head, CompTurbo CT43-xx, '69 Dodge Coronet SuperBee tribute, 440/520 SixPack stroker, auto.
Doesnt matter ignorance of the law is no excuse. All officers involved should have been heavily charged with kidnapping and or false arrest.
My post was a joke and nothing to do with the arrest. I saw that back when it happened since a lot of my car guys are from the Springs and are also gun enthusiast Libertarians. The Springs PD's can be a bunch of Keystone cops frequently.
Yes this guy pushed the limits of his rights without warning the city that he was planning on open carrying at a large public gathering. But the law technically is on his side since the statute(s) were changed. And the cops did not know about the changes, or the changes weren't filtered down to them properly.
As for "heavily charged with kidnapping, etc.", IMO that's taking it a little extreme, considering the specific circumstances on a law that required clarification and that had changed from a prior law.
.
'08 Yamaha R1 (black), mostly stock. Past bikes: '98 VFR-800 (red), '01 CBR-929RR (white/red), '05 Yamaha R6 (white), '08 Yamaha R1 (blue).
'94 Supra Turbo 6spd. (black), BUILT motor/head, CompTurbo CT43-xx, '69 Dodge Coronet SuperBee tribute, 440/520 SixPack stroker, auto.
Because I'm sure you've never screwed up at your job before. Not that there's a whole lot to screw up.
First of all, there is no false arrest charge in the state of Colorado.
We have False Imprisonment, a 5 felony. However part of the charge clearly states it is exempt to a Police Officer acting in good faith in the performance of his duties. The Sergeant at hand was clearly acting on good faith, referring to the documents provided to him by his agency. It is not the Officer's fault, but the agency's. False Imprisonment is also an inappropriate charge because the suspect was transported, and False Imprisonment is not appropriate if transportation of the victim has taken place.
The more appropriate charge would be Kidnapping, a 3 Felony. This charge also exempts Police Officers acting on "lawful justification," which he had (A good faith arrest).
Before you say what should happen by law, make sure you know the law.
Wait, are you're saying that if you have done nothing wrong that you have the right to argue with an officer, resist arrest, and then complain when you still end up in the back of a police car?
The police are not who you plead your case before, that's the judge's job. Had the rider gone along quietly, not argued, and plead his case in front of a judge, would things have ended up any differently?
Last edited by Drano; Sun Feb 10th, 2013 at 05:34 PM.
Yes!
Yeah that probably would have gone a lot differently too if he wasn't video taping.
It's alarming to me how you think that all police are perfect and have your best interests at the front of your mind.
As Aaron said, they are human, they will make mistakes, are emotional just like everyone else. If you don't think for a second that there are bad cops out there you are sorely mistaken. In every profession you have a few really good, lots of average, and a few bad.
Or how about a police impersonator? Any one that walks up to you you're just gonna like yes please handcuff me or my loved ones, I have complete faith that you will do,nothing wrong?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote