Man Attacks Cop Attempting Arrest of Other Suspect

Originally posted by MeesterB
reply to post by susp3kt

 

I sense respect in your post for the greatness that is dale gribble, so there is no beef, but you can't pretend like the rap culture isn't an influence for some. It's a bit off topic, so i'll save the discussion for another thread.

For sure. As with all music, it connects with us on an emotional level, but we have freewill to choose what we act upon.

Further, my post was not an attack against you. I cannot have ill intent against a man who uses Dale as his avatar!

Peace friend.

YES!! Cops You Do Not Run This World!

Cops, You Do Not Run This World!

Originally posted by type0civ
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

My point is to show your obvious bias. You say don't rush to judge by then you saywhy is he resisting?!? You can't know from that video anything more than you see' regardless of what bill was passed by your states lawmakers.

As a matter of fact and law I can make the determination he was resisting.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Wow, what luck that it wasn't me that was being attacked... This guy would have had serious problems other than the assault charge...

This never happened to me or any of my colleagues but I can assure you that it's a fail safe way to get a great "ask questions later" type of intervention started...

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Yeah!!! That guy is awesome. We should take up a collection for him or something.

Originally posted by HomerinNC
doesnt matter why they were arresting the first guy, that idiot was CLEARLY in the wrong for doing what he did

this should go into one of those dumbest crooks shows

Or one of the bravest people on the street....someone who fought back..


The police have pepper sprayed old ladies, beaten up war vets, beaten unarmed students with batons, punched women in the face and generally beaten up people.

Perhaps this is the start of the fightback?

reply to post by Xcathdra


Sorry slick...not by that video.

Originally posted by type0civ
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Sorry slick...not by that video.

Sorry slick but you need to familiarize yourself with the actual law and not your personal opinion.


MARYLAND CRIMINAL LAW - TITLE 9. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION - SUBTITLE 4. HARBORING, ESCAPE, AND CONTRABAND - PART I. HARBORING AND ESCAPE Md. CRIMINAL LAW Code Ann. § 9-408 (2011) - § 9-408. Resisting or interfering with arrest.

§ 9-408. Resisting or interfering with arrest


(a) "Police officer" defined. -- In this section, "police officer" means an individual who is authorized to make an arrest under Title 2 of the Criminal Procedure Article.

(b) Prohibited. -- A person may not intentionally:

(1) resist a lawful arrest; or

(2) interfere with an individual who the person has reason to know is a police officer who is making or attempting to make a lawful arrest or detention of another person.

(c) Penalty. -- A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding $ 5,000 or both.

(d) Unit of prosecution. -- The unit of prosecution for a violation of this section is based on the arrest or detention regardless of the number of police officers involved in the arrest or detention.

Let me help you out.. In the video you can see the officers trying to place the black guy under arrest. That individual refused to cooperate with the arrest by flailing / shifting / moving / squirming / etc. In Maryland you do not have the ability to resist an arrest, whether or not the arrest is valid or not (as that is the responsability of the courts to determine and not the officer or the person being arrested).

Secondly, the black guy came up on the cops when they were origiaonlly dealing with the drunk driver (the guy who later came back and punched the cop). Since the officers had that driver detained, the moment the black guy interfered in that detention, he again interfered with an arrest.

Hate the police as much as you want, I dont care. At the very least though fix your rectal cranial inversion and apply some common sense. Both individuals, the drunk guy and the drunk driver, both resisted arrest, by not only interfering, but by fleeing as well.

Check your universal blanket sterotypical I hate the police at the door please.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Cut and paste all you want ..the video shows a man on the ground protecting himself from kicks and such. The cops story was just that..a story. I'm part of the jury pool slick and if selected on such an issue I'll send trash like

Originally posted by type0civ
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Cut and paste all you want ..the video shows a man on the ground protecting himself from kicks and such. The cops story was just that..a story. I'm part of the jury pool slick and if selected on such an issue I'll send trash like

edit on 17-1-2012 by type0civ because: (no reason given)

Part of the jury pool? You are willingly admitting you are part of the jury pool as well as insinuating that regardless of evidence your going after the officer. Above all your willingly posting that information in a public forum...

A few terms you should learn and familiarize yourself with since apparently you have absolutely no idea just how big the Pandoras box is that you are opening.

Stealth Jurror
Perjury
Mistrial
Over turned conviction due to violation of due process
Contempt of Court
Jury nullification
Jury tampering by intimidation

plus more....

by all means though go down this road. That way you can share a cell with the 2 drunk people who resisted arrest.

Ha..facepalm..I mean I'm a citizen..potential juror..like all of u. Google some of the terms you posted. I've been in a cell before I'm not scared. Are you? That's terrifying for a cop, right? Again slick, no matter what you paste from ant state in the union the video shows no resisting. I don't care what the boys in blue say. And again, it was you who said don't judge until we know the facts, yet you determined it was unlawful for a man to protected himself while on the ground with two men towering over with guns...because he scratched his door.. that we the people pay for. ..

Originally posted by lacrimosa

Good Samaritan!

or an idiot, depends on your IQ i guess.

Those that think idiot clearly have a lower IQ...

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by type0civ
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Sorry slick...not by that video.

Sorry slick but you need to familiarize yourself with the actual law and not your personal opinion.


MARYLAND CRIMINAL LAW - TITLE 9. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION - SUBTITLE 4. HARBORING, ESCAPE, AND CONTRABAND - PART I. HARBORING AND ESCAPE Md. CRIMINAL LAW Code Ann. § 9-408 (2011) - § 9-408. Resisting or interfering with arrest.

§ 9-408. Resisting or interfering with arrest


(a) "Police officer" defined. -- In this section, "police officer" means an individual who is authorized to make an arrest under Title 2 of the Criminal Procedure Article.

(b) Prohibited. -- A person may not intentionally:

(1) resist a lawful arrest; or

(2) interfere with an individual who the person has reason to know is a police officer who is making or attempting to make a lawful arrest or detention of another person.

(c) Penalty. -- A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding $ 5,000 or both.

(d) Unit of prosecution. -- The unit of prosecution for a violation of this section is based on the arrest or detention regardless of the number of police officers involved in the arrest or detention.

Let me help you out.. In the video you can see the officers trying to place the black guy under arrest. That individual refused to cooperate with the arrest by flailing / shifting / moving / squirming / etc. In Maryland you do not have the ability to resist an arrest, whether or not the arrest is valid or not (as that is the responsability of the courts to determine and not the officer or the person being arrested).

Secondly, the black guy came up on the cops when they were origiaonlly dealing with the drunk driver (the guy who later came back and punched the cop). Since the officers had that driver detained, the moment the black guy interfered in that detention, he again interfered with an arrest.

Hate the police as much as you want, I dont care. At the very least though fix your rectal cranial inversion and apply some common sense. Both individuals, the drunk guy and the drunk driver, both resisted arrest, by not only interfering, but by fleeing as well.

Check your universal blanket sterotypical I hate the police at the door please.

edit on 16-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Constitutional law reigns supreme over state law's. Also are you aware that you may have just violated the law by giving not only legal advice(counsel), but bad legal advice? It is a matter of US Supreme Court Case law that an American Citizen has the right to use even lethal force to stop an unjust arrest! You can argue semantics of if this was a just or unjust arrest, but the fact that you advocate enabling police thuggery makes you a threat to the common good.



So either your flat out lieing, or the state of Maryland is in error.

www.markmccoy.com...
"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind.
306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court
stated: "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."

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by type0civ
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Cut and paste all you want ..the video shows a man on the ground protecting himself from kicks and such. The cops story was just that..a story. I'm part of the jury pool slick and if selected on such an issue I'll send trash like

edit on 17-1-2012 by type0civ because: (no reason given)

Part of the jury pool? You are willingly admitting you are part of the jury pool as well as insinuating that regardless of evidence your going after the officer. Above all your willingly posting that information in a public forum...

A few terms you should learn and familiarize yourself with since apparently you have absolutely no idea just how big the Pandoras box is that you are opening.

Stealth Jurror
Perjury
Mistrial
Over turned conviction due to violation of due process
Contempt of Court
Jury nullification
Jury tampering by intimidation

plus more....

by all means though go down this road. That way you can share a cell with the 2 drunk people who resisted arrest.

edit on 17-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Again, your violating the TOS of ATS by engaging in fraud.

JURY NULLIFICATION IS PERFECTLY LEGAL AND ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAVE TRIAL BY JURY! The truth is Judges illegally usurped the powers of a Jury to interpret law.

www.letsgetfreethebook.com...

Legal, but Secret

In a lecture on law at the Philadelphia College in 1790, James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and one of the six original Supreme Court Justices appointed by President George Washington, laid out the American perspective on the role of a jury:

Suppose that, after all the precautions taken to avoid it, a difference of sentiment takes place between the judges and the jury with regard to a point of law... What must the jury do? The jury must do their duty, and their whole duty. They must decide the law as well as the fact. This doctrine is peculiarly applicable to criminal cases, and from them, indeed, derives its peculiar importance.

Soon after, the Supreme Court reaffirmed Wilson's perspective. In Georgia v. Brailsford, a Supreme Court opinion issued in 1794, John Jay, America's first Chief Justice, made clear that a jury's duty includes determining the facts and weighing the justness of the law. He wrote to the jury that:

You, [the jury, have] a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy... [B]oth objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.

Since then, the Supreme Court has ruled on jury nullification only once. In 1895, in the case of Sparf v. United States, a criminal defendant appealed his conviction because the trial judge refused to allow the jury to challenge the judge's interpretation of the law The Supreme Court reaffirmed the "physical power" of juries to nullify, but held that federal judges need not inform jurors of their right to do so.

Since Sparf was decided, Indiana, Georgia, and Maryland have adopted statutes requiring that judges in criminal cases inform jurors of their capacity to nullify. However, in most jurisdictions, the law of Sparf remains the law of the land: Jurors have the ability to nullify, but they don't have the right to know of their ability.

So Newt Jr, what are you going to tell us next?

Originally posted by korathin
Constitutional law reigns supreme over state law's.

Only when there is a conflict between the 2 laws and In this case there is no conflict

Originally posted by korathin
Also are you aware that you may have just violated the law by giving not only legal advice(counsel), but bad legal advice?

I have not given any legal advice to anyone. What I have done is point out the consequences to people who want to go down certain roads. Secondly I find it ironic you want to lecture me on legal advice when you just did the same thing yourself.

Originally posted by korathin
It is a matter of US Supreme Court Case law that an American Citizen has the right to use even lethal force to stop an unjust arrest! You can argue semantics of if this was a just or unjust arrest, but the fact that you advocate enabling police thuggery makes you a threat to the common good.

John Bad Elk v. United States - 177 U.S. 529 (1900).- The US Supreme Court ruled a person cannot use deadly force for an unlawful arrest. The Supreme court further established that the use of deadly force during an unlawful arrest, when their is no danger of death or serious physical injury. The case you are referring to came out of Indiana, where the Indiana Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a person who killed a deputy during an unlawful arrest.

Because its an Indiana ruling, it has absolutely no influence on the laws of other states.

Originally posted by korathin
So either your flat out lieing, or the state of Maryland is in error.

Im not lieing and Maryland law is accurate and correct . Feel free to go back and read it.

Please take some time to understand the different levels of government as well as how laws work at those different levels.

Originally posted by korathin
Again, your violating the TOS of ATS by engaging in fraud.

Actually im not. Ive cited the laws that apply to this case. I have walked people through the law enforcement side of things.

Originally posted by korathin
JURY NULLIFICATION IS PERFECTLY LEGAL AND ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAVE TRIAL BY JURY! The truth is Judges illegally usurped the powers of a Jury to interpret law.

No kidding... If you spent some time reading you would have understood that post. When the person stated he was part of the jury pool while making comments about his position, I gave an example of what could happen to him should he go down that road.

Originally posted by korathin
So Newt Jr, what are you going to tell us next?

Well Ms. Pelosi for starters I would suggest you go back to all of the schools you attended and ask for a refund, in addition to:

That you dont understand how government works.
That you dont comprehend that the Federal Government and a State Government are considered sovereign.
That you dont understand the difference between federal law and state law and the application of those laws.
That you dont understand how judicial proceedings work.
That a State Supreme Court ruling in one state has no effect on any other states.
That you dont understand subject resistance control.
That you dont know the criteria set forth by the Supreme Court regarding law enforcement.
That you dont understand the courts determine if an arrest is lawful or not.
That you dont understand the police dont determine if an arrest is lawful or not.
That you dont understand a private individual does not determine if an arrest is lawful or not.
That you seem to think personal opinions of yours trump law.

I do this for a living so by all means feel free to keep embarrassing yourself.

Wow people are throwing tyranny around and such. I'm no cop fan myself, but from the information provided they were arresting a drunk driver, something I think cops should do.

reply to post by Xcathdra


You just proved yourself wrong and biased by posting that actual law wording. The law states you can not resists a "lawful arrest" or interfere with officers attempting a "lawful arrest". By the video, how can you tell that the officers were making a lawful arrest?
In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that a person may take the life of an officer if necessary to prevent an unlawful arrest.
How can you tell if it was lawful or unlawful from the footage?

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
You just proved yourself wrong and biased by posting that actual law wording. The law states you can not resists a "lawful arrest" or interfere with officers attempting a "lawful arrest". By the video, how can you tell that the officers were making a lawful arrest?

Actually I didnt. I addressed that in my last post where I stated the determination of an unlawful arrest resides with the courts, not the police nor the citizen. If you rob a bank, the bank employees dont determine your guilt or innocence - the courts do.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that a person may take the life of an officer if necessary to prevent an unlawful arrest.

I addressed this issue as well. The US Supreme Court has ruled a person cannot resist an unlawful arrest, and the court case for that is also in the posts above.

The ruling allowing the use of deadly force in fact came from the Indiana Supreme Court, and as such, is only applicable to Indiana and no other states.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
How can you tell if it was lawful or unlawful from the footage?

The dwi driver fled the scene, which is resisting a lawful detention / arrest.
The black guy for interfering with the detention of the dwi guy.
The black guy for struggling against the police while they tried to place him into handcuffs.
The dwi driver again for punching the cop while they were trying to arrest the black guy.

The charge of resisting arrest will be the responsibility of the PA.

You cannot resist an arrest in Maryland and It is irrelevant if the person being arrested thinks the arrest is unlawful.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
If you rob a bank, the bank employees dont determine your guilt or innocence - the courts do.

In fact, you are doing just that with your posts, you are determining the men in the videos are guilty. Unless you are a court, you do not have that right or authority.

I addressed this issue as well. The US Supreme Court has ruled a person cannot resist an unlawful arrest, and the court case for that is also in the posts above.

The ruling allowing the use of deadly force in fact came from the Indiana Supreme Court, and as such, is only applicable to Indiana and no other states.

While the original case was made in Indiana Supreme Court, it was upheld by the US Supreme Court. See:Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest where is states:

Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “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.”

The dwi driver fled the scene, which is resisting a lawful detention / arrest.
The black guy for interfering with the detention of the dwi guy.
The black guy for struggling against the police while they tried to place him into handcuffs.
The dwi driver again for punching the cop while they were trying to arrest the black guy.

The charge of resisting arrest will be the responsibility of the PA.

You cannot resist an arrest in Maryland and It is irrelevant if the person being arrested thinks the arrest is unlawful.

How can you tell all this went down from the video?

Edit:
Now show me where in the law is states that we do not have the right to defend against unlawful arrest, when it states clearly in the law you posted it only states that you cannot resist a lawful arrest.