It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

107 year old man killed by SWAT team in Arkansas

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by TheMagus
 


No, my point was that the officers have families themselves. Why would they stand by while someone shot at them and risk being killed themselves? Honest question.




posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   
When did the police adopt a policy that if shot at or they think they see a gun then they kill the person.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I still have not seen anyone indicate the following:

1. It's not illegal or dangerous to shoot at cops\people multiple times.
2. If he would have hit someone it would have done just as much damage as if say someone in their 40s would have pulled the trigger.
3. Sources indicating this story didnt happen the way it has been reported.

I'll say the same thing I have been saying because some of you are so emotionally invested in this specific post you are refusing to logically discuss it.

It's easy for us to sit here and armchair quarterback how "we would have done it so much better!" because sitting behind a computer and having someone shoot at you are the same thing. For all the people that promote guns , if someone fires off a minimum of two shots at you and you are carrying that day I bet anything that most people would return fire. Their are absolutely cases of police brutality just like their are cases of horrible crimes by every day people.I don't see this as a case of police brutality. I see this as a case of someone fired on the police multiple times and they returned fire.

It's tragic, no one wins and multiple families have been destroyed. As I said before I wish the old man did not make the wrong choice to put multiple people at risk by firing and through that choice ending his life.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


I think there is a policy that if you get shot at twice to shoot. The guy SHOT at the police TWICE. He wasn't just standing there with a gun. I would understand the outrage if he hadn't shot at the police and they shot and killed him.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
If when swat arrived, it became known the old man was the father or grand father of one of the swat team men, would the outcome.have been the same. Bet not.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Well now that is a completely inaccurate statement you made there, yes, my children have faced similar situations and when demented family members show the first sign of being a danger to themselves or others, it is time to take safety measures for them whether they 'think' they are ready or not.

One of the main emotional points for me and the reason why I do not accept the socialmedias story without questioning, is that the 107 year old man did not just nut up and go postal, he got to the end of his rope with the 2 people and threatened them, then went on to bed. Happens. BUT the 2 if they were truly competent caretakers would have never let it escalate to this point in the first place and then played the victims after a 911 call gone bad.

As long as this story is not brushed under the carpet as the msm set out to do yesterday, then more of the truth will have a chance to surface and more facts as well. The public has to keep using search terms and discussions continue on forums and blogs to make that happen.

This was handled in a terrorizing and criminal manner. Period.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by oblvion
 



The problem is the police will not EVER let a situation end peacfully, they have to chain and drag away someone to put in their cages, while treating them as guilty, until they are finally proven innocent weeks or months or even years later.


I sure hope that is emotion and hyperbole speaking and not your true feelings on EVERY man and woman in this nation to wear a uniform and badge? I can tell you from direct, lifelong and ongoing personal experience....EVERY cop is nothing remotely like that. If they were, you'd have a true, and I mean REAL sense of foreboding if not outright fear every time you saw a police officer in this nation who wasn't otherwise occupied and could, on a whim, turn his attention upon you.

I hope we never reach that stage...but from what I know of people among law enforcement, we're in no danger of that ever happening here.

What we are in danger of, it seems, is more Rambo-wanna-be's hired out of the 2-4 year colleges like education and police work on the street are supposed to be connected in a meaningful way. Education is the PROBLEM on that level, not the solution. We have kids with guns and tasers too smart to "lower" themselves to the level of laying hands on a criminal and bringing a situation under control with direct intervention.

Hell... The college kids just come, see, kill and get the paperwork in by quitting time. Off to the next one to beat, tase, kill or just watch while someone else does it, tomorrow.

.... I know what I JUST said almost sounds contradictory to what I started with, but it's not. There are two VERY distinct and VERY VERY different cultures among Police that I've seen today. The "New Breed" of snot nosed punk up out of the class rooms, who knows everything and unfortunately, has EVERYTHING to prove to the world.....in ever individual contact he/she makes with the public. Next to that, we have the "Old School" with fewer and fewer every day.

The Old School types are those who came out of the Vietnam War or were trained by those who did ...even a generation or two down the line, for all I care. The meaning still carries. These are the guys who came on, ALREADY having proven everything they ever needed or wanted to prove to anyone, about anything and don't feel the need to beat some kid to make themselves feel like big men.

We need to refocus priorities here...and contrary to how it sounds?? We need *MORE* combat vets and former soldiers out of this war. NOT LESS. Vets have SEEN all the death, blood and guts anyone needs or wants ..in MOST cases...forever. They aren't LOOKING for reasons to spill more. Those who haven't seen it? Well.... We see them in thread stories like this, Daily.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I agree with everything you said, except about the part where the police dont "want" to chain and drag away then throw in a cage every person they can, because they do, all the time.

The only recourse for folks not politically connected or rich, is to defend themselves, or be treated as animals.

One does not have to "allow" the police to arrest them if they have done nothing wrong.

The supreme court already ruled on this several times.


“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.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a 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.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.


constitution.org...

Just saying, we dont know he was guilty of anything. He may have only been defending himself from the 2 that made the call.

The police show up, this guy is going to jail no matter what, which is against the law, and he has a right to defend his freedom with as much force as it takes to protect his freedom and rights against the police.

The law seriously acts like it is not so bad to be chained dragged away and thrown in a cage, and left for days or weeks or months or even years before they can "prove" they are innocent.

One is not required to submit to such behavior, and the Supremes have already ruled one may fire upon and even kill as many officers as it takes to protect their freedom from them.
edit on 9-9-2013 by oblvion because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by oblvion
 


Well, I wish this hadn't been the thread for a "All cops are evil pigs" approach to rear it's ugly head on. I can't, on any level whatsoever, defend what I understand to be the events which happened in Arkansas.

Having said that? "Defending yourself" against police is a 100%, no exception, no alternate ending, LOSING proposition. Beat one? 10 more appear where he stood. Kill one? 1,000 appear where he fell. There is NO winning from that approach.

Best thing to do? Honestly? If you realize you are facing a bad cop? Become the MODEL suspect in every way. Yes, Sir. No, Sir, May I have another, please, Sir. That kind of thing. Not because you're a wimp...because you are NOT letting it end there...but there is NEVER the place to resist or fight. If you play nice nice, he's less likely to note every detail and remember everything he does to abuse your rights.

Then...when you make your formal complaint, first with infernal repairs (Internal Affairs is what most departments call the Police Police), you can make full detailed recollection the cop won't match. Cop cops LOVE nothing more..and LIVE to arrest, bust and prosecute other cops. USE that...and don't feed a bad cop with even more reasons to either serious harm you...or like this thread? Just kill you outright.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by antar
 


It is sad that the first option in engaging this old gentleman ended in his death, I would have thought that someone of his years warranted a more" tailored" response,i.e taking the time to find out if he had mental problems, was on medication etc.

.However,not knowing the full details of this incident, perhaps this had already been taken into consideration and the lethal response was deemed to be the most suitable?.

Whatever the circumstances it leaves a bad taste in the mouth to learn of someone of such advanced years being taken like this.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by oblvion
 


Well, I wish this hadn't been the thread for a "All cops are evil pigs" approach to rear it's ugly head on. I can't, on any level whatsoever, defend what I understand to be the events which happened in Arkansas.

Having said that? "Defending yourself" against police is a 100%, no exception, no alternate ending, LOSING proposition. Beat one? 10 more appear where he stood. Kill one? 1,000 appear where he fell. There is NO winning from that approach.

Best thing to do? Honestly? If you realize you are facing a bad cop? Become the MODEL suspect in every way. Yes, Sir. No, Sir, May I have another, please, Sir. That kind of thing. Not because you're a wimp...because you are NOT letting it end there...but there is NEVER the place to resist or fight. If you play nice nice, he's less likely to note every detail and remember everything he does to abuse your rights.

Then...when you make your formal complaint, first with infernal repairs (Internal Affairs is what most departments call the Police Police), you can make full detailed recollection the cop won't match. Cop cops LOVE nothing more..and LIVE to arrest, bust and prosecute other cops. USE that...and don't feed a bad cop with even more reasons to either serious harm you...or like this thread? Just kill you outright.


Yes ...because cops dont lie for other cops all the time right?

Imean they would never be able to beat a man to death in broad day light, while he is unarmed, and there are several of them watching and helping...right?

I mean these internal investigations never result in nothing but a paid vacation for the offending officer...right?

I am not making this an "all pigs are evil" thread, I know and like many officers, right here in my town, in several tons actually.

This is the police are violating the law and they know it, and I am pointing that out, as evidenced by my quoting the exact rulings of the Supreme Court on these exact types of issues.

This guy had a gun, the cops were called, he was going to jail or the morgue, there was no other ending an you know it.

Despite the fact he may well have been within his rights to use the weapon to repel force, which is why they then called the cops. Not just to good guys use the police to get what they want you know. Bad guys call then to punish good guys too, all the time.

This is of course all speculation, as none of know what the facts of the case are.

I am just saying, that today, if I break into your home, or threaten you, and you pull a gun, and I am theone that calls the law, they are going to come and arrest you, or send you to the morgue, one or the other 99% of the time.

When by law, you were well within your rights to brandish and threaten me with the gun, you should not be jailed, or arrested, but both are going to happen to you illegally, because I called the them and said you had a gun, and threatened me with it.

You are then within your rights to resist said unlawful arrest with any and all force, upto and including killing as many officers as it takes to maintain your freedom.

The police dont care about your rights, they only care about locking you up, like a animal, and if you resist, such is you right after all as the arrest is not legal, they will kill you.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by oblvion
 



.

Best thing to do? Honestly? If you realize you are facing a bad cop? Become the MODEL suspect in every way. Yes, Sir. No, Sir, May I have another, please, Sir. That kind of thing. Not because you're a wimp...because you are NOT letting it end there...but there is NEVER the place to resist or fight. If you play nice nice, he's less likely to note every detail and remember everything he does to abuse your rights.



See where you're coming from Wrabbit, however, is pandering to someone like this not tantamount to tacitly condoning this type of behaviour, in a way it reminds me of the relative ease by which the Nazi's rounded up the Jews, the vast majority went without a fight, had there been more resistance then who knows how many may have been saved. But yeah,as I said' I see what you mean, sometimes it's better to kowtow than to be dead.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by oblvion
 


I don't know where you live....


I am just saying, that today, if I break into your home, or threaten you, and you pull a gun, and I am theone that calls the law, they are going to come and arrest you, or send you to the morgue, one or the other 99% of the time.


...but that is absolutely NOT the law in my state, with plenty of home defense shootings AND situations of holding at gunpoint until cops arrive having happened to know that is absolutely NOT how reality plays out here. Now, I can't say what other states may be like as Law Enforcement culture varies quite a bit from state to state. I learned that in some uncomfy ways by trucking. Here though? Your fears and irrational sense of threat from every cop on the walk wouldn't be appropriate at all.


You are then within your rights to resist said unlawful arrest with any and all force, upto and including killing as many officers as it takes to maintain your freedom.


If you honestly believe that, PLEASE, get educated on what the law actually IS and what it actually SAYS. Someone following that as real world action will have it on their tombstone, assuming they have surviving family to mourn their loss. It is never....ever....*E V E R* wise, OR legal (that I'm aware of) to resist a police officer during his official duties. If he's wrong? Good.... Make your case OFF the street and show him whose boss in a Court Room. The street is their world though. If you fight, you lose. EVERY time. NO exception.

You not only lose in absolute terms after resisting...but any and every argument you ever might have had for doing something about it? Well, that's likely destroyed, along with your own future, following the charges that come from it.


Why look to make more trouble in a situation already overrun with it? I've never understood the desire to fight the cops. I'd rather right a Marine in full rampage. At least HE might be reasoned with...maybe. A cop just feels the 'law' behind him like an 800lb gorilla and nothing is shaking that confidence in the moment.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by nake13
 


You know the most painful thing about threads where this side of things comes up?

Respect for the law and a desire to live within it is seen as weakness and kow-towing. (sigh)

....what future have we left in this nation, as the public opinions start to turn this way? History shows in plenty of cases what happens in a society when respect becomes contempt for even the most local version of authority.

I'm well armed....so I'll survive the world that follows where that line of thinking leads for historys consistent example. I hope everyone else is.....because without those evil guys with badges? You either put down the criminal yourself, personally, or GET put down. Again...as history shows, in clear detail in every society that's fallen the way we are right now.


* I just want to add...with rare exception that isn't a factor today anyway, this isn't remotely personal and I see your point to. When I was younger and not looking long term? I even agreed with it. Far more than I do today, anyway. I guess I'm learning what fuddy duddy means. lol.... I think more about tomorrow than today when considering action vs. consequence vs. gain to come from it all.
edit on 9-9-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by TheMagus
 


No, my point was that the officers have families themselves. Why would they stand by while someone shot at them and risk being killed themselves? Honest question.


again NO , My point is that the VICTIMS of police brutality and extra-judicial execution have families themselves.
why should we, the citizenry, allow ourselves to be brutalized and extra-judicially executed by mad dogs?

you are arguing privilege, that it's better that the hundreds of people murdered by police to die, and let their families be damned, than a single cop be hurt or killed, there is no evading that.


Report: Israeli model underlies militarization of U.S. police

the fundamental problem here is that when one is dealing police, one is dealing with, for the most part, with a dangerous, often juiced up, well organized predator cult
on the same wavelength and using the same tactics as "Fight Club" .

tons of links on this page
Police with Tasers Sanctioned Torture & Summary Execution In America

I posted an article (www.prisonplanet.com) dated June 23, 2005 which reported that 105 people were killed in North America within the first 3 months of 2005 by police using 'non-lethal' high voltage TASER guns. It was shocking enough to read that 70 people were killed in North America in 2004 from being tasered by police, but now that number has been exceeded by 25% and ii was only the first quarter of 2005.

The public needs to become aware of this new, lethal abuse from police personnel who are suppose to protect the public, not torture and summarily execute people because they don't "comply" quickly enough when ordered to do this or that. It was predictable that this abuse would ensue as more and more police departments in Britain and America started distributing this high tech torture device to the rank and file last year.

The use of TASER guns by police departments across America must come to an end

We cannot trust police personnel or their supervisors or their police chiefs to use these weapons judiciously, sparingly, and with reservation in order to subdue only those offenders who present a real threat of serious bodily injury (or death) and cannot be subdued by any other means, using more traditional and 'non-lethal' means of restraint-like a few cops jumping on the guy and physically overpowering him.

When you read the commentary from police spokesmen who attempt to minimize and dismiss this new threat when answering reporters questions, you can see from their words that they are impressed with and intoxicated by the newly realized power and intimidation factor gleaned from using Flash Gordon weaponry.

Police department apologists apparently aren't willing to own up to the fact that in the vast majority of these cases, harmless and relatively innocent people are being tasered and sometimes killed because they hadn't responded quickly enough to some 'compliance' order being barked at them by a policeman! Never mind that the person being tasered may not have understood, or heard, or even realized what was being said to him. Immediate 'compliance' is the order of the day today with Officer Rambo and too bad if you get killed for not obeying police 'orders' quickly enough!


educate-yourself.org...

Subject: Police Taser
From: yourarestupid@dbadg.com
Date: Thu, June 2, 2011 4:21 pm
To: Ken Adachi

Be a police officer for a day. Let someone point a gun at you and see if you would shot or talk to them...do you want to risk them shooting you? Lets think about it...If someone is going to attack you why should a police officer engage in a brawl when they can simply tase them and it is over.

Your claims are unproven and taken out of context...you are allowing a few miss happens represent all of police. If an individual is druged up and dies after being tased that is not the fault of the officer or the taser. The most important thing is officer and public saftey. It a dope boy or criminal gets tased it is 5 seconds of pain with no after effect with the exceptions, they fall on an object, hit there head, or die to the amount of drugs in their system...either of these is better than an officer or an innicident person being hurt. It is ingorance, like in your article, that harms America today.

[unsigned]

***

Dear "yourarestupid",

Phew ...I simply can't imagine someone throwing around the word ignorance and "innicident person" in the same sentence.

It's not really necessary to compose a rebuttal to your letter, since you've already done it for me, but I'll add a few thoughts to what you've already made plain.

For starters, you lack the recognition that a cop (which I assume you are), is being paid by taxpayers in order to serve and protect; not to brutalize and bully.

Your obvious insensitivity to the value of human life, and the rights of citizens to be treated with humaneness and a sense of fair proportion in terms of police response, is not even on the radar screen for you.

The first statement you make is "Let someone point a gun at you" yada, yada. But the reality is that among the tens of thousands of people who routinely get tasered by police in this country (some of them dying and some of them left with permanent neurological damage, and ALL of them with psychological damage) almost NONE of them were holding a gun.

If fact, if they were holding a gun, the police wouldn't be taking out their TASER guns, because they would have already shot the guy --multiple times--with the gun that has bullets in it. You know that. I know that. And everyone reading this knows that.

"Lets think about it"

That's a hot one.

"Thinking" is the last thing that America's modern NWO Robo Cop does. Unthinking and unjustified over-reaction is what we get far too often from police who have no sense of proportion; and no recognition of the freedoms guaranteed to citizens under the US Constitution.

If all we were dealing with were a few "miss happens," no one would be complaining. The reason that you find so many articles, stories, documentaries, videos, web sites and organizations devoted to addressing the issue of police brutality is because the problem has reached epidemic proportions; and no end in sight.

It's not hard to see what's taken place here. Today, police recruits are mostly chosen from the ranks of ex-military with combat experience. The same desensitization to suffering, dehumanization, and psyche indifference training that they received in the military continues at the police academy and the many federally funded "security enhancement" training weekends they get from federal agencies like the FBI and DHS.

The citizens of Everytown, America have become the "enemy" for a growing army of NWO Robo Cops. Mr. Joe Blow is viewed with suspicion and a sort of casual disdain, which is why many cops privately refer to the public as "sheep." The citizen is someone to be spoken to with a sort of phony veneer of civility by repeatedly using the word "sir", but usually winds up being treated like an indentured slave-or worse.

It's no problem "proving" my claims of police brutality because the newspapers are filled with the mega-million dollar lawsuit settlements that are paid each year--borne by the taxpaying public of course-- to the families of victims of police brutality due to over-reaction, misconduct, or criminal intent. If the cops themselves who were responsible for the brutality, had to pay the settlement, police brutality would stop overnight. Police thugs or police murderers never pay a price, execpt in a few highly politicized cases like the BART cop who shot a handcuffed man. Only the local taxpayer and the victim pay the price for police brutality.

"The most important thing is officer and public saftey."

I saved this one to the end. You're not concerned about public "saftey" my cowardly friend. And you never have been, at least not in modern times. I remember how cops behaved in the 1950s and 60's. They acted like human beings then. They saw themselves as a member of the SAME public they strove to protect, and they proved it with their conduct. The modern American Robo cop is something else.

Cops who abuse the very citizens whom they were sworn to protect will themselves gather their own just rewards and pay a price, whether I write about it or not. It's called karma and you can't get away from it.

Ken Adachi.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I don't think anyone is arguing if brutality, police or criminal, is wrong. I know I have not at any point said I support police\criminal brutality.

I am not sure how people are viewing this as a case of police brutality. It's horrible, it's ruined multiple lives and I see nothing incorrect about it if how it has been reported is accurate. If the average citizen next to me has a gun or the cop down the street has a gun I can tell you I am sure as hell not pulling a gun out and shooting at them multiple times because chances are they might return fire.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Sir I quoted you strait from the Supreme Court cases where this came up. You ARE absolutely aloud to use any and all force necessary to protect your freedom from anyone even the police.

Just because they have a badge doesnt mean you have to let them bully you or throw you in jail at their discretion.

There is no law that allows them to do so, they have to have good cause, and in alot of cases a warrant to even arrest you.

The United States Supreme Court ...SCOTUS...is where the quotes I gave to you came from, this issue has already been decided, the police lost, they are only doing it because folks allow them to break the law.

Arrest is the direct removal of you rights, they must have cause and or a warrant, and be able to prove it to arrest you.

If you resist unlawful arrest, you cannot be charged, as it is your right to do so.

Scroll back up and look at the quotes...NVM, I have them right here


“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.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a 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.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by oblvion
 


fair enough. I have real doubts as to the citation above in context and precedent recognized as being established, however, you are right in it being a valid one. I need to check and read the case tonight before saying more. Even the law guy here looked at me funny, so I'm off to read more.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by tetra50
 


I dont think it comes down to using your children in a situation like this, but since I do not live in a cookie cutter world like some, we take care of our aging family just as they did us when were young and fragile. When things get rough or there are complicated milestones in either direction such as a child discovering the world for the first time or in Monte's situation closing down and moving in the opposite direction, it all comes down to their safety first and then accepting the limitations with dignity and respect. At 107 he should have been sheltered against this type of harm. Just like we do not condone nor chastise a 2 year old who finds a gun and uses it in a harmful way because they do not have the ability to discern nor the experience to comprehend, the same goes for care of the elderly.

When it all comes down, I would love to see any and all toxicology reports from an autopsy. I think this could have been thwarted through other means such as discovering he was suffering from dehydration, a UTI, complications from medicines or any of the other basics you learn from elder care. IMHO, this was not his fault. When we stop or more so society and the LEO stop taking each case on an individual basis, it is the first steps into hard core tyranny against the masses and a direct lack of empathy for human beings which are without empathy, reduced to commodities, animals.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


What if it had been a 2 year old? Also if it had been a 107 year old who was loved or as you said related to the cops, hell no this would not have happened.

I tell ya, with all of baby boomers coming of age in a time where BSE is rampant, laws better reflect something much more individualized than what happened here. A huge number of US Citizens are diving right past sexy senior citizen and straight into demented old people, fast in numbers never before dealt with in our past history due to modern medicine. Old yes, healthy no. The policy makers better take that into accounting especially when in their lifetimes they will likely see the fall of the USD and with it their imagined illusionary fortunes.


edit on 9-9-2013 by antar because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join