Man Turning In Stray Cat Killed

[MSimon]

More Police WTF: Alabama Man Shot, Killed by Police While Turning in Stray Cat

I believe the reason for his death is FYTW. And he didn't have proper government issued papers. Reminds me of the anti-Nazi movies I used to watch in the '50s. Except our police are now the Nazis. In the '40s we used to be proud of "we're not like that". No more.

I expect the summer of 2015 will approach the summer of '67.

[choff]

Believe half of what you see and nothing that you hear. That's what my mama used to tell me in the sixties, they didn't have computer graphics back then like now, so I don't trust the other half of what I see so much either.

http://www.infowars.com/mystery-sandy-h ... -pakistan/

Not to say everything in the news is a crock, lets just say that the government might want to manipulate your opinions and behavior in certain directions in order to foster public support for new laws.

The kinds of laws that let them do things they weren't allowed to do before.

[paperburn1]

It seems to me we are seeing the resurgence of yellow journalism.

[MSimon]

We are very fortunate that the homicide of Eric Garner was ruled justified by a secret grand jury trial. .

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc ... -1.1888808

He was killed for selling untaxed cigarettes. He had none in his possession at the time. Too bad the police don't carry throw down cigarettes.

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

[GIThruster]

"If cops can't defuse this sort of situation peacefully—or with something well short of lethal violence—they don't deserve to be wearing badges."

This whole hit piece is just an example of the worst of the confirming evidence fallacy. You think cops are all bad so every issue that has to do with cops has to be interpreted as cops doing bad. That's the sort of silly, childish nonsense people are supposed to outgrow in high school critical thinking classes.

We don't have many of the details here, but we know a few things. We know the guy was angry and acting out enough for the people at the shelter to call the cops. We know he had not one but two restraining orders against him for attacking and threatening a pair of women. We know he wasn't paying his child support. And hey, the guy was nuts. Who in their right mind thinks possession of any sort of documentation means they are not subject to the federal, state and local laws? Who did you think that hit piece was quoting? No healthy people think this way. This guy was obviously diagnosable. And since we were not there, and know that we have not been given the whole story, to presume the cops did wrong just because an angry, violent guy got himself shot is just the most childish sort of thinking--the kind of thinking we were all supposed to have set aside before becoming adults. Whomever wrote this is certainly not an adult.

People need to stop demonizing the police. Yes, there are bad apples and they need to be found and plucked out, but the vast majority of law enforcement are good guys who deserve our support, especially when there is so much crazy, even in places like engineering forums. Haters gotta hate but that doesn't mean good men shouldn't point out the stupidity and childishness of their ways.

Oh BTW, what you didn't get from the hit piece because it doesn't play into the ridiculous scenario the writer is selling you--animal shelters ask for ID for very good reasons. Most municipal laws require when someone turns in a pet, since that pet may have been abducted, or abused, the person turning in the pet needs to show ID and the shelter needs to record that ID. Same requirement in a pawn shop. Shelters all require ID and it doesn't matter that this guy didn't like it. That's the law. If he weren't busy making trouble by challenging everyone and claiming to be above the law, then he would never have frightened the shelter works, would never have had the police called, would never have had the ridiculous story about how he isn't accountable to obey the law, would never have had the angry confrontation that lead to his death. This guy caused all this when he could have walked away at any time. So how are we supposed to be sympathetic toward him?

[MSimon]

People need to stop demonizing the police.

That will stop when the police stop demonizing the people. We had a similar decline of trust in police during Alcohol Prohibition. Prohibition turned everyone into a suspect and the police treated the people accordingly. And the people returned the favor.

The people were smart enough to see that they had done it to themselves and passed the 21st Amendment.

If the police don't like it - well they can find a different job.

[ohiovr]

critical thinking classes



We don't have those in Merica

[choff]

Police do things in accordance with ongoing training, conditioning and policy guideline changes. You have to start looking at who in heck is stuffing them with stupid ideas that cause conflict. 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?

[paperburn1]

"he instead showed paperwork that identified him as a sovereign citizen and, therefore, not bound by federal, state, or local laws."
I once read a very interesting paper concerning sovereign citizens, in specific a sovereign citizen of another planet. The question that was posed was if a person from the world Earth, country the United States of American, from the state North Carolina, were to kill a space alien that claim to be a sovereign citizen of another planet would that person be guilty of murder?

The short version of that story ended up that no he would not. If your sovereign citizen recognized only by yourself and not bound by federal, state, or local laws you receive no protection by those laws.

A person of that sovereignty were to take your life he would not be in fact liable for murder. By reason that a person with no sovereignty to world, state, country, would have no protections from the force of actions of people that were bound by law Of a world state or country.
And put this in perspective, United States has SOFA agreements with countries other than United States to protect its citizens. Also that is the reason for diplomatic embassies and other countries as to provide a presence for protection of the citizens.
And now it begins

[choff]

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.

[TDPerk]

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.

Yes. And the gold fringe on the flag is very important.

[MSimon]

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.

And after you say "no" ask the officer if he can explain them to you.

[MSimon]

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.

Yes. And the gold fringe on the flag is very important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_ ... ted_States

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/admiralty

[paperburn1]

Admiralty courts were transferred in 1791 to the other courts, Courts have repeatedly dismissed this as frivolous claim. Nevertheless, practice rules in most court require any challenges to jurisdiction to be made immediately before other pleadings. That being said Any courts can rule on any various issue, including maritime or admiralty if applicable to the claimants. If a successful challenge to a criminal prosecution under admiralty jurisdiction were to be made, the matter would be dismissed before any plea could be entered.
The reality of this happening is almost non existent. No court has to relinquish jurisdiction due to Admiralty claims if similar laws apply in traditional court.

[Diogenes]

Oh BTW, what you didn't get from the hit piece because it doesn't play into the ridiculous scenario the writer is selling you--animal shelters ask for ID for very good reasons. Most municipal laws require when someone turns in a pet, since that pet may have been abducted, or abused, the person turning in the pet needs to show ID and the shelter needs to record that ID. Same requirement in a pawn shop. Shelters all require ID and it doesn't matter that this guy didn't like it. That's the law. If he weren't busy making trouble by challenging everyone and claiming to be above the law, then he would never have frightened the shelter works, would never have had the police called, would never have had the ridiculous story about how he isn't accountable to obey the law, would never have had the angry confrontation that lead to his death. This guy caused all this when he could have walked away at any time. So how are we supposed to be sympathetic toward him?

I have to object to your characterization of municipal laws requiring ID to turn over a stray animal as an acceptable thing. If the Shelters will round up stray cats off the street, they do not have a moral leg to stand on for demanding ID from anyone bringing in a stray.


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.


It is just one more manner in which they try to acclimate people to the idea that "officials" can legitimately demand their "Papers".