reply to post by Demoncreeper
Demoncreeper, hello! I have a couple things to say that might be of interest to you since you seem to be some sort of "policy enforcement officer"
with talks of you arresting people...
Firstly you gave the definition of arrest earlier but just for those that are new I'll post it again here, I'm using my legal dictionary, are
v. 1) to take or hold a suspected criminal with legal authority, as by a law enforcement officer. An arrest may be made legally based on a warrant
issued by a court after receiving a sworn statement of probable cause to believe there has been a crime committed by this person, for an apparent
crime committed in the presence of the arresting officer, or upon probable cause to believe a crime has been committed by that person. Once the arrest
has been made, the officer must give the arrestee his/her rights ("Miranda rights") at the first practical moment, and either cite the person to
appear in court or bring him/her in to jail. A person arrested must be brought before a judge for arraignment in a short time (e.g. within two
business days), and have his/her bail set. A private "security guard" cannot actually arrest someone except by citizen's arrest, but can hold
someone briefly until a law officer is summoned. A "citizen's arrest" can be made by any person when a crime has been committed in his/her
presence. However, such self-help arrests can lead to lawsuits for "false arrest" if proved to be mistaken, unjustified or involving unnecessary
2) to delay the enforcement of a judgment by a judge while errors in the record are corrected.
As you can read here, everything involving arrest has to do with another magic word, crime
. Lets define crime next;
n. a violation of a law in which there is injury to the public or a member of the public and a term in jail or prison, and/or a fine as possible
penalties. There is some sentiment for excluding from the "crime" category crimes without victims, such as consensual acts, or violations in which
only the perpetrator is hurt or involved such as personal use of illegal drugs.
Now I must ask, what injury did these 7000 people inflict? To whom? Lets define injury:
n. any harm done to a person by the acts or omissions of another. Injury may include physical hurt as well as damage to reputation or dignity, loss
of a legal right or breach of contract. If the party causing the injury was either willful (intentionally causing harm) or negligent then he/she is
responsible (liable) for payment of damages for the harm caused. Theoretically, potential or continuing injury may be prevented by an order of the
court upon a petition for an injunction.
Ahhh! Aaaaha! Any harm done to a person
! I think I'm onto something here... If I were to call this supposed injured person to the stand as a
witness to the crime that was committed against them who would come to the stand? With what injury? Wouldn't anyone claiming to represent "the
crown/government/state" just be acting on hearsay? Does the judge not represent the government/state/crown? Is this not a conflict of interest?
I also want to ask you (as well as any other policy enforcers out there):
Did you go to law school to be a "Law Enforcement Officer"? The answer is probably a big fat NO.
So then I must ask, what makes you think you know the law well enough to enforce it?
"I'm just doing my job sir/ma'am" is getting pretty pathetic these days.
"The lawyers and judges will sort it out" - If you
don't even understand why you have arrested the person then why
have you arrested
This is why people are getting sick of the sick twisted system. Its all coming crashing down and people are waking up. The more the merrier I say!
All definitions copied from dictionary.law.com...