First, Let's Piss Off The Police

[Leo123]

nothing false about it,, they go out and do a constitutionally protected activity and let the cards fall where they may,,

whats funny is some cops admit they know whats going on and still try and violate their oaths and arrest the guys,,

and again, which video are you talking about?? the post office or the suspended cop??

The one where the cop seized money. Around 12:30 (in the video) it says the cop was within the law. The video makes the point that it is a law that is disturbing. I don't blame cops for following law. If I am upset about laws it is my duty to try to change them not blame cops.

 

[Leo123]

In that case…so did MAGA

Buzz off TDSer.

 

[progressive hunter]

The one where the cop seized money. Around 12:30 (in the video) it says the cop was within the law. The video makes the point that it is a law that is disturbing. I don't blame cops for following law. If I am upset about laws it is my duty to try to change them not blame cops.

figures you would side with a law that violates the constitution that allows the theft of private property from a cop on the side of the road

 

[Leo123]

figures you would side with a law that violates the constitution that allows the theft of private property from a cop on the side of the road

NO!! I don't side with the law, I'm just saying don't blame the cops!! If it were up to me, drugs would not be illegal........I applauded when CA legalized marijuana. So much wasted law enforcement time going after a fucking plant!! Seems to me you blame cops instead of bad laws. Cops are human beings and are fallible AND they are ARMED! It makes no logical sense to challenge them on the street!!! Instead work to get rid of or change bad laws. Stop blaming all cops.

 

[progressive hunter]

NO!! I don't side with the law, I'm just saying don't blame the cops!! If it were up to me, drugs would not be illegal........I applauded when CA legalized marijuana. So much wasted law enforcement time going after a fucking plant!! Seems to me you blame cops instead of bad laws. Cops are human beings and are fallible AND they are ARMED! It makes no logical sense to challenge them on the street!!! Instead work to get rid of or change bad laws. Stop blaming all cops.

they swear an oath to the constitution and if a law violates that and they choose to enforce that law instead of the constitution they are the problem not the law,,

 

[progressive hunter]

NO!! I don't side with the law, I'm just saying don't blame the cops!! If it were up to me, drugs would not be illegal........I applauded when CA legalized marijuana. So much wasted law enforcement time going after a fucking plant!! Seems to me you blame cops instead of bad laws. Cops are human beings and are fallible AND they are ARMED! It makes no logical sense to challenge them on the street!!! Instead work to get rid of or change bad laws. Stop blaming all cops.

to be honest I posted the wrong video,, this is the one I meant to post but both fall under the same context,,

 

[Rigby5]

You need to ask somebody to know that they don't need a big screen or jewelry to survive?

The point is how you knew they did not need to steal the big screen or jewelry in order to prevent their wife and kids from getting evicted, after losing his restaurant job to covid?

 

[Rigby5]

Sure you are. In this country all accused are considered innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.

In a situation of battle it doesn't matter whether you're armed or a black belt. If you willingly start an altercation and kill somebody in the process, you are charged with murder or manslaughter. Black belts are not required by law to do anything different than the untrained. If your state has a Stand Your Ground law, that means you have no duty to retreat either. We just passed ours last summer.

Wrong.
If you have a black belt, you are required by law to warn the other person, retreat, and do what ever is possible, because it is NOT going to be a fair fight. You will have deadly moves instinctively ingrained. So you have to apply due diligence in the attempt to avoid the physical fight. If you still end up killing them, and they were not armed, you likely are going to get convicted.
With stand your ground, you still DO have a duty to retreat as long as there is no property at risk from doing so.
The ONLY stipulation of "stand your ground" is that you are allowed to defend property. If there is no property at risk, then you do have to retreat.

{...
A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) provides that people may use deadly force when they reasonably believe it to be necessary to defend against deadly force, great bodily harm, kidnapping, rape, or (in some jurisdictions) robbery or some other serious crimes (right of self-defense). Under such a law, people have no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, so long as they are in a place where they are lawfully present.[1] The exact details vary by jurisdiction.

The alternative to stand your ground is "duty to retreat". In states that implement a duty to retreat, even a person who is unlawfully attacked (or who is defending someone who is unlawfully attacked) may not use deadly force if it is possible to instead avoid the danger with complete safety by retreating.

Even duty-to-retreat states generally follow the "castle doctrine", under which people have no duty to retreat when they are attacked in their homes, or (in some states) in their vehicles or workplaces. The castle doctrine and "stand-your-ground" laws provide legal defenses to persons who have been charged with various use of force crimes against persons, such as murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, and illegal discharge or brandishing of weapons, as well as attempts to commit such crimes.[2]

Whether a jurisdiction follows stand-your-ground or duty-to-retreat is just one element of its self-defense laws. Different jurisdictions allow deadly force against different crimes. All American states allow it against deadly force, great bodily injury, and likely kidnapping or rape; some also allow it against threat of robbery and burglary.

A 2018 RAND Corporation review of existing research concluded that "there is moderate evidence that stand-your-ground laws may increase homicide rates and limited evidence that the laws increase firearm homicides in particular."[3] In 2019, RAND authors indicated additional evidence had appeared to reinforce their conclusions.[4]
...}

If they are not armed, then there is no deadly force threat and no evidence of great bodily harm.
We are not discussing possible kidnapping or rape.
And robbery is irrelevant unless you have property to defend.

 

[Rigby5]

So when did I claim to know what every person is thinking? What clear facts are you talking about? I said repeatedly that the OP was vary vague and not enough information to make me come to a solid decision.

My point was that if lock people up for a simple mistake we are going to have less people get into that field of work. I even gave an example so there would be no questions on where I stood.

I didn't know you were so hell bent on changing the subject. Civil asset forfeiture again is a case by case basis. A crack house, yes as long as they are not renting it. If the person owns it then it should be taken because it's more than likely the owners friends won't stop business just because the owner is sitting in jail. We need to close places like that down.

On the other hand a true story here: Years ago the father of a late friend of mine got a DUI. He was driving home from the bar and I assume his driving habits were less than impressive. A cop followed him home. When he parked on the street and started to walk up the drive, the officer approached him and gave him a sobriety test and of course arrested him after he failed.

He was a Polish immigrant and spoke with a heavy accent. When he went to court, he plead guilty. He said to the judge "Judge, I do wrong, I admit. I drink, I go to jail. But police tow car. Car was not drinking, I was!!!!" The court bust out in laughter and even the judge couldn't help himself.

I think asset forfeiture is always wrong.
If nothing else, it destroys any hint of impartiality of the police and judicial system, because it gives a monetary incentive to profit from convictions.
Cars should never be confiscated, because the person's family or others may need it, or the defendant may need it in order to sell and pay lawyer's bill.
Houses can not legally ever be confiscated because of Homestead principles.
{...

Homestead​

The dwelling house and its adjoining land where a family resides. Technically, and pursuant to the modern homestead exemption laws, an artificial estate in land, created to protect the possession and enjoyment of the owner against the claims of creditors by preventing the sale of the property for payment of the owner's debts so long as the land is occupied as a home.

...
Homestead rights exist only through the constitutional and statutory provisions that create them. Nearly every state has enacted such provisions. The earliest ones were enacted in 1839 in the Republic of Texas.

Homestead exemption statutes have been passed to achieve the public policy objective of providing lodgings where the family can peacefully reside irrespective of financial adversities. These laws are predicated on the theory that preservation of the homestead is of greater significance than the payment of debts.

Property tax exemptions, for all or part of the tax, are also available in some states for homesteaded property. Statutory requirements prescribe what must be done to establish a homestead.
...}

 

[Leo123]

If you have a black belt you have already been trained to retreat if possible. The best 'fight' is the one that never happened.

 

[Rigby5]

The one where the cop seized money. Around 12:30 (in the video) it says the cop was within the law. The video makes the point that it is a law that is disturbing. I don't blame cops for following law. If I am upset about laws it is my duty to try to change them not blame cops.

No, the law is usually extraordinarily broad, so that the cops have the ability to use discretion in extreme cases, that should not always be enforced.
When cops claim they are forced to follow the letter of some law enforcement, they are lying.

 

[Leo123]

No, the law is usually extraordinarily broad, so that the cops have the ability to use discretion in extreme cases, that should not always be enforced.
When cops claim they are forced to follow the letter of some law, they are lying.

Correct, the cop had discretion and he chose to confiscate. The law gave him that discretion. if that really bothers you then change the 'extraordinary broad' laws!!! Stop blaming the cop. Cops face all the way from good, to sketchy to downright bad people. They are only human, like you and me, they are not robots with no feelings. We should be very selective in who we deem to be officers of the law. That being said, the current 'defund the police' crap only further limits funding to one of the most important institutions in America. Perhaps we are not getting the best recruits?

 

[Rigby5]

Correct, the cop had discretion and he chose to confiscate. The law gave him that discretion. if that really bothers you then change the 'extraordinary broad' laws!!! Stop blaming the cop. Cops face all the way from good, to sketchy to downright bad people. They are only human, like you and me, they are not robots with no feelings. We should be very selective in who we deem to be officers of the law. That being said, the current 'defund the police' crap only further limits funding to one of the most important institutions in America. Perhaps we are not getting the best recruits?

Cops who confiscate when there is not obvious evidence of excessive corruption on the part of the accused, is himself corrupt. Law giving discretion does not mean they have to use the extreme interpretation all the time.
But I agree much of the problem is we are recruiting police mostly from veterans, who have been taught entirely different and wrong rules of engagement. We should likely have half as many police, but with much higher standards and pay.

 

[progressive hunter]

Cops who confiscate when there is not obvious evidence of excessive corruption on the part of the accused, is himself corrupt. Law giving discretion does not mean they have to use the extreme interpretation all the time.
But I agree much of the problem is we are recruiting police mostly from veterans, who have been taught entirely different and wrong rules of engagement. We should likely have half as many police, but with much higher standards and pay.

holy shit we agree on something,,
I have long said military especially combat vets should never be allowed in law enforcement because of the difference in training,,
military is trained to kill people and break things while law enforcement is for public safety and law enforcement,,

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Cops who confiscate when there is not obvious evidence of excessive corruption on the part of the accused, is himself corrupt. Law giving discretion does not mean they have to use the extreme interpretation all the time.
But I agree much of the problem is we are recruiting police mostly from veterans, who have been taught entirely different and wrong rules of engagement. We should likely have half as many police, but with much higher standards and pay.

They give veterans extra points because for one, they served our country. If they are a war veteran, they are able to keep their cool under fire. They are less likely to flip out and make mistakes that those of us who were never shot at before might make. It's something they've been through before and likely repeatedly.

 

[progressive hunter]

They give veterans extra points because for one, they served our country. If they are a war veteran, they are able to keep their cool under fire. They are less likely to flip out and make mistakes that those of us who were never shot at before might make. It's something they've been through before and likely repeatedly.

their training is to kill people and break things,, we dont need that in law enforcement,,

and being a veteran doesnt make them less likely to make mistakes,,

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think asset forfeiture is always wrong.
If nothing else, it destroys any hint of impartiality of the police and judicial system, because it gives a monetary incentive to profit from convictions.
Cars should never be confiscated, because the person's family or others may need it, or the defendant may need it in order to sell and pay lawyer's bill.
Houses can not legally ever be confiscated because of Homestead principles.
{...

Homestead​

The dwelling house and its adjoining land where a family resides. Technically, and pursuant to the modern homestead exemption laws, an artificial estate in land, created to protect the possession and enjoyment of the owner against the claims of creditors by preventing the sale of the property for payment of the owner's debts so long as the land is occupied as a home.

...
Homestead rights exist only through the constitutional and statutory provisions that create them. Nearly every state has enacted such provisions. The earliest ones were enacted in 1839 in the Republic of Texas.

Homestead exemption statutes have been passed to achieve the public policy objective of providing lodgings where the family can peacefully reside irrespective of financial adversities. These laws are predicated on the theory that preservation of the homestead is of greater significance than the payment of debts.

Property tax exemptions, for all or part of the tax, are also available in some states for homesteaded property. Statutory requirements prescribe what must be done to establish a homestead.
...}

They generally don't confiscate houses with families occupying them. Then again people selling large amounts of dope generally don't do that if they are raising a family. Landlords use to lose property because their tenant(s) were selling dope from the rental unit. They got together to stop it because we have no idea what our tenants do when we're not around. Even if we did, it's difficult to evict them, especially if they are a minority.

Here they wouldn't sell the property but did board it up and not allow us to rent to anybody else for a year. Landlords could not afford to pay the mortgage because that's what the rent was for. The only other choice they had was sell the place and payoff the mortgage. Very unfair because we can't be responsible for our tenants unless we are aware they are using the rental unit to sell drugs.

So again I support it depending on the situation. A friend of mine is an avid fisherman. He told me that if he got busted drinking alcohol on the boat, they would take the boat, all his fishing gear, and he wouldn't get it back. That's uncalled for just for drinking on the boat.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

their training is to kill people and break things,, we dont need that in law enforcement,,

and being a veteran doesnt make them less likely to make mistakes,,

No it doesn't but like they instructed us when I was getting my CCW, shooting at cardboard targets is much different than shooting at a human being who is shooting back at you. Even veterans don't like killing people. My father would talk about his time in the service during the Korean war. He'd talk about anything except killing the enemy. He lived with the guilt his entire life.

 

[progressive hunter]

No it doesn't but like they instructed us when I was getting my CCW, shooting at cardboard targets is much different than shooting at a human being who is shooting back at you. Even veterans don't like killing people. My father would talk about his time in the service during the Korean war. He'd talk about anything except killing the enemy. He lived with the guilt his entire life.

we hope shooting people is the thing they do the least,,,
but I stand by my view that vets should never be police because of their training,,

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong.
If you have a black belt, you are required by law to warn the other person, retreat, and do what ever is possible, because it is NOT going to be a fair fight. You will have deadly moves instinctively ingrained. So you have to apply due diligence in the attempt to avoid the physical fight. If you still end up killing them, and they were not armed, you likely are going to get convicted.
With stand your ground, you still DO have a duty to retreat as long as there is no property at risk from doing so.
The ONLY stipulation of "stand your ground" is that you are allowed to defend property. If there is no property at risk, then you do have to retreat.

{...
A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) provides that people may use deadly force when they reasonably believe it to be necessary to defend against deadly force, great bodily harm, kidnapping, rape, or (in some jurisdictions) robbery or some other serious crimes (right of self-defense). Under such a law, people have no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, so long as they are in a place where they are lawfully present.[1] The exact details vary by jurisdiction.

The alternative to stand your ground is "duty to retreat". In states that implement a duty to retreat, even a person who is unlawfully attacked (or who is defending someone who is unlawfully attacked) may not use deadly force if it is possible to instead avoid the danger with complete safety by retreating.

Even duty-to-retreat states generally follow the "castle doctrine", under which people have no duty to retreat when they are attacked in their homes, or (in some states) in their vehicles or workplaces. The castle doctrine and "stand-your-ground" laws provide legal defenses to persons who have been charged with various use of force crimes against persons, such as murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, and illegal discharge or brandishing of weapons, as well as attempts to commit such crimes.[2]

Whether a jurisdiction follows stand-your-ground or duty-to-retreat is just one element of its self-defense laws. Different jurisdictions allow deadly force against different crimes. All American states allow it against deadly force, great bodily injury, and likely kidnapping or rape; some also allow it against threat of robbery and burglary.

A 2018 RAND Corporation review of existing research concluded that "there is moderate evidence that stand-your-ground laws may increase homicide rates and limited evidence that the laws increase firearm homicides in particular."[3] In 2019, RAND authors indicated additional evidence had appeared to reinforce their conclusions.[4]
...}

If they are not armed, then there is no deadly force threat and no evidence of great bodily harm.
We are not discussing possible kidnapping or rape.
And robbery is irrelevant unless you have property to defend.

Stand your ground is all about removing the duty to retreat. That's what it means. Prior to the passage of it in my state, if I was armed and somebody started screaming at me because they thought I cut them off or something, I could not scream back at them and then use deadly force no matter what. While I was armed, I had the legal obligation to leave any potential violent confrontation. Now with Stand Your Ground, I can scream back at them. I don't have to try and escape the environment. And if the person attacks me, I do have the right to use deadly force if necessary.

There is no law that requires black belts to advise their attacker of their training.