17-year-old arrested in killing of 2 people in Kenosha

You know what, no. Just f'ing no. LEO's are not straight up civilians. They operate under different rules than 'you' (all) do. You know it, I know it (since I taught it), we all know it. LEO's aren't military, but they are not the same. You (all) have a duty to at least attempt to de-escalate or avoid. LEO's are SENT to bad situations and try to de-escalate, but do not have to. The courts have upheld the difference in standards, ever heard of LEOSA? Different. Just one of many examples. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's a damn fact.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
There is no 'black letter of the law'. It's all up to judges to decide.
So you're saying...
4toslj.jpg
 
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:
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.
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
This tells you it's a circus. There is ZERO standard deviation between UoF as a civilian than a LEO. I'm certified to teach BOTH now. If you are reasonably certain that grievous bodily hard is the outcome, you can use deadly force to defend yourself. Even 'civilians' can defend others, the standard is the damage the aggressor is capable of doing.

There is a standard to not engage as a civilian, which is fine. But Kyle didn't engage, he fled. While fleeing the area, he was under continual attack by both disproportional numbers, size, 'Lefty' had a gun, and one case a weapon of opportunity (skateboard). Both are articulable facts that allow disparate force.

I've said it before, if he were my kid, I'd have gone and bought a leather belt. But he's not the one at fault for this situation.
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.
 
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 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?
 
My growing concern is it seems in this country, depending on where charges are brought, we are operating with Kangaroo courts.
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?

There are specific rules for LEO's in court:
BRADY/GIGLIO and Officer Integrity
Edit: That didn't link right, but the information is there.
I dunno, it works for me.
 
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.
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.
 

What a world, where you can't call a rioter a rioter.
KN said:
The motion asks that the defense “be prohibited from referring to Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber or Gaige Grosskreutz as ‘rioters,’ ‘looters,’ ‘arsonists’ or any other pejorative term
Rosenbaum is on video fueling a literal dumpster fire, and being dead, isn't likely to be formally charged for that act.
 

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.
So that basically limits the defense to saying, "well they came at me so I shot em" = guilty on all charges. Ridiculous....
 

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
 
Back
Top Bottom