choff wrote:Take that chokehold, that was banned for police in Canada decades ago within months after being introduced. Who in heck introduced that into U.S. police usage, what in hell were they thinking?
That restraint method was indeed banned by NYPD long ago, which is the main reason the cop in question is in serious trouble. Still, it is a mischaracterization to say the victim was "murdered". He died as result of an accident and he caused the accident. And sicne the police are protected from the legal ramifications of accidents in the line of duty, one would need to show the man was deliberately killed rather than by accident to find the cop guilty of more than a procedural violation. Cops don't get fired for procedural violations, nor indicted. This cop is going to get a hand-slap and nothing more.
paperburn wrote:If your sovereign citizen recognized only by yourself and not bound by federal, state, or local laws you receive no protection by those laws.
It's silly to think anyone can write himself a note that absolves him from responsibility to the law. This guy was obviously unstable.
choff wrote:I've read that if you are ever arrested and read your rights, at the end when the officer asks if you understand the rights/charges against you, answer with a no. Unless you have a law degree, a legal dictionary and access to recent court decisions on precedent, you can't possibly understand to begin with. Secondly, what he really means is do you 'stand under' the law, in some situations they can't even make an arrest if you say no.
Whatever you read on this is incorrect. ignorance of the law is never a defense for breaking the law. If someone could prove to a court that they did not understand their memorandum rights, they would at the very most have a possible escape from their own testimony, but they would not have a defense for the supposed crime nor would they escape arrest. You've been misled.
Diogenes wrote:I happen to know that the reason they want ID is so they can charge you for dropping off a stray animal. It is a money grubbing scheme, and worse it is an effort to assert more governmental control in an area where they have no legitimate business asserting it.
Not true. It is the municipalities who routinely have this law, not the shelters and the shelters are most often run by the ASPCA and such. The fact is, in the past, people have abducted the pets of neighbors for barking and such, removed their collars and turned them in to shelters, and the law has evolved to meet the need to catch such criminals. I have dated several ASPCA workers and this is the story they told. And shelters cannot and do not charge anyone for turning in a stray. They merely take the name of everyone who turns in a pet in case that pet is abducted or abused, both of which are illegal activities the police follow up on.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis