I never said otherwise. But, cops get to make mistakes in dynamic situations. That's where QI should come into play. Not covering up incompetency.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
17-year-old arrested in killing of 2 people in Kenosha
- Thread starter Toast
- Start date
DarthRevan
NES Member
A damn fine line.
Since you taught it, please tell me what branch of the United States Military our state and local police officers in the United States fall under?
What provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice do they derive their authority from?
They may have different rules as a condition or function of their employment, but they are still civilians.
Different jobs have different rules, different roles and different responsibilities.
As a matter of national and international law, police in the US are a Civilian Law Enforcement group.
I bet you're the guy who gets bent when a cop says 'subject'.
No, because subject or suspect or similar all mean things.
Unsub is a generally accepted term.
Can you please explain exactly why you teach that police officers are not civilians under federal and international law?
I never said they weren't, if you read what I wrote. I said they were different from normal people as viewed by both law and the courts.
They are "normal people" that just happen to be able to get away with a LOT more than the unwashed masses.
They are civilians. We need to stop pretending otherwise.
Posse comitatus - Wikipedia
Sort of proves the point. Police officers as a matter of law, are civilians.Posse comitatus - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
You get it, we eat our own while they propagate and grow stronger.
I disagree. You can be wrong or you can be right.
The rule of law is not something to play fast and loose with.
In the end, the black letter of the law is all we have to stand on.
Last edited:
There is no 'black letter of the law'. It's all up to judges to decide.
AHM
NES Member
So if a judge decides that Rittenhouse used an assault rifle that makes his semi-automatic AR-15 pattern rifle an assault rifle and therefore a machine gun as a matter of law?
Um, no? The definition of a machine gun is already out there. The judge could call it whatever he wants to call it. The 'current' definition of an 'assault rifle' is some generic description of a semi-automatic sporting rifle.
Edit: Even if a judge DID make such a ruling, it would never stand on appeal even in the 9th. So, I guess he could, but the judgement wouldn't stay for long.
Last edited:
So what you are saying is that just because some number people use the wrong terminology, this does not suddenly make it the correct terminology?
Sure, keep equating LEO"s to normal people, one day it'll be true. I could say the same about the term 'civilian' as in how it's being used in context. Just because one thing sets the definition does not make it completely uniform across all usage.
But as a matter of law, police officers are civilians. What makes them other than "normal"?
I am still waiting for you to explain why you teach otherwise.
I agree with this 100%. My growing concern is it seems in this country, depending on where charges are brought, we are operating with Kangaroo courts.
I have zero idea what you are asking me to produce. You say LEO's are looked at through the same lens legally as regular population. That simply isn't true. There are fewer SCOTUS cases that involve regular population use of force. I don't know of any off the top of my head, but I'm not saying there aren't any. I'd have to look at dozens or hundreds of cases that support the more popular one's like Terry, Graham, and Garner. Those 3 cases have dozens of other cases cited in the decisions.
There are specific rules for LEO's in court:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theiacp.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FBrady-Giglio.pdf&clen=4618714&chunk=true
Edit: That didn't link right, but the information is there.
That's just one instance, there are others, how many do you need to see?
AHM
NES Member
Cheer up.
Old and Busted:
Jury Nullification.
The New Hotness:Jury Nullification,
bragged about on social media by nullifying juror.
(You know people are that stupid).
Some judge will inevitably go FR with contempt orders,
because respect mah authoritah.
If the nullifying jury sufficiently represents their community,
it'll be game on.
At the very least, nightmare voir dires that take longer than the trials.
They poll the public incessantly about how much they respect various professions.
Sometimes they just ask about generic "politicians",
but frequently "legislators" are distinguished -
which is thought to separate their reputation from those of executives.
While "lawyers" are probably a perennial favorite,
polls about "the judiciary" feel rather rarer (with the exception of SCOTUS).
The day may yet come when pollsters will rue
not having laid down an adequate baseline about garden variety judges.
In Real Life I'm not some guy waving pamphlets on the sidewalk near the courthouse.
But the jury is one of the Four Boxes.
Do you suppose there are Northeast Flamers, Northeast Voters, and Northeast Jurors forums
out there somewhere on the Intarwebs?
I dunno, it works for me.
KBCraig
NES Member
The terms of art are "black letter" (what the law actually says), and "case law" (what judges say the law says).
Judges have been notoriously incorrect about what the law actually says, dating back to the very founding of the country.
KBCraig
NES Member
KBCraig
NES Member
I don't think anyone has said that LEOs are looked at through the same lens, legally.
And that's the entire point: they're not, but they should be treated like all other civilians.
Cops certainly don’t consider themselves civilians.
State looks to block defense in Rittenhouse case from referring to shot men as "looters"
Prosecutors are asking a judge to prohibit defense attorneys from referring to the men shot by Kyle Rittenhouse as rioters or looters.
What a world, where you can't call a rioter a rioter.
Rosenbaum is on video fueling a literal dumpster fire, and being dead, isn't likely to be formally charged for that act.KN said:
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 4,830
- Likes
- 8,110
So that basically limits the defense to saying, "well they came at me so I shot em" = guilty on all charges. Ridiculous....State looks to block defense in Rittenhouse case from referring to shot men as "looters"
Prosecutors are asking a judge to prohibit defense attorneys from referring to the men shot by Kyle Rittenhouse as rioters or looters.www.kenoshanews.com
What a world, where you can't call a rioter a rioter.
Rosenbaum is on video fueling a literal dumpster fire, and being dead, isn't likely to be formally charged for that act.
State looks to block defense in Rittenhouse case from referring to shot men as "looters"
Prosecutors are asking a judge to prohibit defense attorneys from referring to the men shot by Kyle Rittenhouse as rioters or looters.
What a world, where you can't call a rioter a rioter.
Rosenbaum is on video fueling a literal dumpster fire, and being dead, isn't likely to be formally charged for that act.
Judge also prevented the prosecution from calling the shot men as 'victims' so he is being fair and just in application of his rule
Apparently this is something this judge does all the time.
