It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
Theres no excuse for what these officers did. NONE. How can it take 6 men to subdue one person?
Originally posted by WhiskyKisses
Have you ever seen someone on a ton of PCP get angry?
Have you? PCP the great cover all myth.
let's not forget the guy was face down and handcuffed when he was murdered.
The only difference between you and I is that I reserve judgement until the full facts are known.
He will ultimately give these police officers a better defense than you have so far.
As far as this incident goes a few questions come to mind.
I am reserving judgement on the incident at hand because there simply is not enough facts for one to pass judgement. Please do not accuse me of being a police apologist. I am merely presenting facts that may not be thought of before passing judgement.
If this was a case of police brutality where the man died, the police deserve to be dealt with harshly. I am merely providing the reader with a different view point because, with the evidence provided, no judgement can be passed yet.
So you will admit that there IS a defense for the police officer's actions?
I have never argued otherwise and have consistently used the term REASONABLE SUSPICION regarding these apparent criminal thugs dressed as Fullerton Police Officers.
Ok, now I think we are on the same page. Yes, I will agree that there is reasonable suspicion that the incident may have been police brutality. This incident warrants a full investigation, reviewed by the State's Attorney, to gather additional facts. If the evidence amounts to probable cause that the officers committed murder, assault or manslaughter then they should be charged with such crimes.
It is everyone's natural and unalienable right to not be condemned based solely upon reasonable suspicion.
Well i saw two cops on top of a homeless guy that i know, and uhh they were pretty much beating him up, telling him to stop resisting and then more police came and they started beating him with the back of the flashlight at the back of his head.
And he wasn't moving around at all, but more came and they started tasering him and it was just a horrible sight.
Setting aside the brutality for a moment I just wanted to point out that there is a line when it comes to what a lawful arrest is or is not, and a person resisting that arrest. I know most people in here think they are jtually exclusive, IE if the arrest is not lawful, I dont have to cooperate. The problem is they are seperate from each other. If an officer is making a false arrest, a person cannot resist that arrest.
At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be murder if the officer had the right to arrest might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right. So an officer at common law was not authorized to make an arrest without a warrant for a mere misdemeanor not committed in his presence.
If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest.
A person confined in gaol, by virtue of a void warrant, may lawfully liberate himself, by breaking the prison, using no more force than is necessary to accomplish this object.
Nor is it a crime or misdemeanour in such person, that while his sole object was to liberate himself, other persons lawfully confined for atrocious crimes in the same room with him, in consequence of such prison-breach, made their escape.
The act of the prisoner in question was so far from being a high crime and misdemeanour, that it was justifiable. [**8] And here it is not intended to suggest, that a prisoner might not do acts which would be unjustifiable, in order to escape from unlawful imprisonment. He might not, for example, kill the gaoler, or set the prison on fire, or totally demolish it; for none of these acts might be at all necessary to effect his object. But he might lawfully free himself from this imprisonment; since it is confessed to have been illegal. It appears, that all the proceedings were void. A void process is no process. The complainant,--the justice of the peace who ordered him to be committed,--the sheriff who executed the pretended warrant,--and the gaoler who held him under it,--are all liable for false imprisonment. This is the undoubted doctrine of the common law from the time of the Marshalsea case, 10 Co. 68. to this day. It hence results, that the keeper of the gaol is vested with no authority; the building in which the prisoner was confined, is not a gaol, but as to him, a mere private building; and hence he might regain that liberty of which he was unjustly deprived; and it is no part of the case that he made use of more force than was necessary to accomplish this object. Nor does [**9] the fact that he was confined with certain atrocious offenders, render it less proper for him to effect his escape.
Criminal Law. -- Murder. -- Self-Defence. -- Retreat when Assailed. -- Use of Deadly Weapon. -- Instruction to Jury. -- On the trial of a defendant indicted for murder, where the evidence showed, that he, being disabled in one arm, had procured a pistol to defend himself against a threatened assault by an able-bodied man, and that, while standing on a public street, leaning against a building, surrounded by an excited crowd, he had been threatened by another person, and then struck by a third, the deceased, whom he at once had shot and killed, the court instructed the jury, that, "before a man can take life in self-defence, he must have been closely pressed by his assailant, and must have retreated as far as he safely or conveniently could, in good faith, with the honest intent to avoid the violence of the assault."
Held, that such instruction is erroneous.
Held, also, that, where a person, being without fault and in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel force by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self-defence, he kills his assailant, he is justifiable.
"The law gives to every man the right of self-defence. This means [**4] that a man may defend his life, and may defend his person from great bodily harm. He may repel force by force, and he may resort to such force as, under the circumstances surrounding him, may reasonably seem necessary to repel the attack upon him, and, in his defence, he may even go to the extent of taking the life of his assailant. The law, however, is tender of human life, and will not suffer the life even of an assailant and wrong-doer to be taken, unless the assault is of such a character as to make it appear reasonably necessary to the assailed to take life in defence of his own life, or to protect his person from great bodily harm. And if the person assailed can protect his life and his person by retreating, it is his duty to retreat, and thus avoid the necessity of taking human life. Do not understand me, gentlemen, to say, that retreat is always necessary, before the party assailed may take life in his defence. Retreat might be perilous or impossible, and might tend only to increase the danger.
OVERVIEW: Police officers arrested defendant for public drunkenness without a warrant. Defendant, asserting he was not drunk, resisted the arrest and hit the officers. The jury rendered a verdict of not guilty of public drunkenness but guilty of resisting arrest and of simple assault. On appeal, the court reversed. The court held that the evidence on which the state relied failed to show prima facie that defendant's conduct at the time of arrest amounted either to an actual or threatened breach of the peace within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15-39. Hence, the arrest was illegal and the state failed to make out a prima facie case of resisting arrest. It was manifest that mere drunkenness unaccompanied by language or conduct which created, or was reasonably calculated to create public excitement and disorder amounting to a breach of the peace, could not justify an arrest without a warrant under the statute.
The offense of resisting arrest, both at common law and under the statute, G.S. 14-223, presupposes a lawful arrest. It is axiomatic that every person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such case the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self-defense.
Now, with that being said some states (Texas and a few others) do have laws that take that stuff into account. This will vary from state to state. I am not condoning the officers actions at all. I am simply pointing out what the law says when dealing with this subject manner.
Before people torch me on the front lawn, I did not make the law. If you dont like the law, then get involved and have it changed.
I have gone hands on a few times with EDP (emotionally disturbed people). Just because there is a "mental issue" present does not mean the person weas a nerf helmet and is incapable of doing damage. With mental problems there is the very real possibility that there is a misfire when it comes to strenght and pain thresholds.
Anyways, I am just pointing this info out and nothing more.
You know, if it was you, you would want to defend yourself againt the beatings, everybody would because it is only natural to be self protective don't you think?
And they just beat him and tased him even more as he tried to defend himself, he died because of the beatings which means they have murdered him by using excessive force.
If it was me, I would have cooperated with the police and not resisted arrest or detention. I think one of the established facts is that he resisted arrest to some extent.
When confronted with resistance to an arrest, the police must use a reasonable amount of force to overcome that resistance and take the person into custody. There is a fine line between defending yourself and resisting arrest. At this point, based on the facts provided, the man died as a result of force used by a police officer. An in depth investigation will determine if he was murdered due to excessive force or not.