Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A riskytard classic
118 views
Skip to first unread message
BillB
Jan 2, 2023, 1:21:37 PM1/2/23
to
"The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead." -- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
Of course, riskytard thinks citizens lose all their constitutional rights when the mayor of Bumfuk, USA unilaterally declares martial law, which riskytard claims is well within his or her authority to do. That's what he said, so it must be true! Riskytard has a high IQ, y'know. He said so himself. Such a brilliant legal mind!
Of course, riskytard thinks citizens lose all their constitutional rights when the mayor of Bumfuk, USA unilaterally declares martial law, which riskytard claims is well within his or her authority to do. That's what he said, so it must be true! Riskytard has a high IQ, y'know. He said so himself. Such a brilliant legal mind!
VegasJerry
Jan 2, 2023, 2:02:17 PM1/2/23
to
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:21:37 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> "The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is
> constitutionally unreasonable.
.
> "The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is
> constitutionally unreasonable.
Well that’s a new one for me. But I’ve been out of the cop business for a long time.
Tell me what “Constitutionally unreasonable” means and what powers does it have?
.
> It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate
> threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not
> justify the use of deadly force to do so.
Duh!
.
> It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little
> late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect.
Duh! Again.
> It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little
> late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect.
.
> A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead." -- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
.
> A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead." -- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
More Duh!
.
> Of course, riskytard thinks citizens lose all their constitutional rights when the mayor of Bumfuk, USA unilaterally declares martial law, which riskytard claims is well within his or her authority to do. That's what he said, so it must be true! Riskytard has a high IQ, y'know. He said so himself. Such a brilliant legal mind!
“If, in the officer’s judgement, a fleeing felon can be a danger to the officer or others (might shoot or
kill them) the officer is justified in shooting the fleeing felon.”
Yea, them ain’t the exact words. But yes, you resist arrest and can be a lethal danger to the officer or
others, you an be shot.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/can-police-use-lethal-force-fleeing-suspect
BillB
Jan 2, 2023, 2:52:24 PM1/2/23
to
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:02:17 AM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:21:37 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > "The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is
> > constitutionally unreasonable.
> .
>
> Well that’s a new one for me. But I’ve been out of the cop business for a long time.
> Tell me what “Constitutionally unreasonable” means and what powers does it have?
It means a police officer would be violating a suspect's constitutional rights to use lethal force against him absent the suspect posing an imminent risk of serious physical harm to someone.
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:21:37 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > "The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is
> > constitutionally unreasonable.
> .
>
> Well that’s a new one for me. But I’ve been out of the cop business for a long time.
> Tell me what “Constitutionally unreasonable” means and what powers does it have?
> “If, in the officer’s judgement, a fleeing felon can be a danger to the officer or others (might shoot or
> kill them) the officer is justified in shooting the fleeing felon.”
>
> Yea, them ain’t the exact words. But yes, you resist arrest and can be a lethal danger to the officer or
> others, you an be shot.
risky biz
Jan 2, 2023, 3:34:52 PM1/2/23
to
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:21:37 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> "The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead." -- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
>
~ Of course, riskytard thinks citizens lose all their constitutional rights when the mayor of Bumfuk, USA unilaterally declares martial law, which riskytard claims is well within his or her authority to do. That's what he said, so it must be true! Riskytard has a high IQ, y'know. He said so himself. Such a brilliant legal mind!
>
This fiction you're trying to whip up by starting a new thread is amusing. What I (in reality) think and said can be read in these 4 links:
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/bmvLvR3FCgAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/C9EG_S4QCwAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/aS1zLnlUCwAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/8P09bVGoCwAJ
risky biz
Jan 2, 2023, 3:38:26 PM1/2/23
to
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:52:24 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:02:17 AM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:21:37 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > > "The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is
> > > constitutionally unreasonable.
> > .
> >
> > Well that’s a new one for me. But I’ve been out of the cop business for a long time.
> > Tell me what “Constitutionally unreasonable” means and what powers does it have?
> It means a police officer would be violating a suspect's constitutional rights to use lethal force against him absent the suspect posing an imminent risk of serious physical harm to someone.
> > “If, in the officer’s judgement, a fleeing felon can be a danger to the officer or others (might shoot or
> > kill them) the officer is justified in shooting the fleeing felon.”
> >
> That is not correct.
> > Yea, them ain’t the exact words. But yes, you resist arrest and can be a lethal danger to the officer or
> > others, you an be shot.
~ The suspect does not have to pose a "lethal danger" to be shot. That is not the test. The point is that law enforcement has no right to shoot a looter running away from the Dollar General with an armful of trinkets,
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:02:17 AM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:21:37 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > > "The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is
> > > constitutionally unreasonable.
> > .
> >
> > Well that’s a new one for me. But I’ve been out of the cop business for a long time.
> > Tell me what “Constitutionally unreasonable” means and what powers does it have?
> It means a police officer would be violating a suspect's constitutional rights to use lethal force against him absent the suspect posing an imminent risk of serious physical harm to someone.
> > “If, in the officer’s judgement, a fleeing felon can be a danger to the officer or others (might shoot or
> > kill them) the officer is justified in shooting the fleeing felon.”
> >
> That is not correct.
> > Yea, them ain’t the exact words. But yes, you resist arrest and can be a lethal danger to the officer or
> > others, you an be shot.
Was anyone dumb enough to not notice the clever jump from 'lethal danger' to 'armful of trinkets'.
~ contrary what riskytard believes.
risky biz
Jan 2, 2023, 3:47:06 PM1/2/23
to
~ On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:52:24 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
~ < a load of Flood-The -Zone bullshit >
BTW, numbskull- the issue has no relation whatsoever to the value of what a looting mob is 'stealing' or to what the monetary value of that is in relation to their lives. The issue is public order, the rule of law, and the rights of all American citizens being violated wholesale by a mob bent on rapine, which, big surprise, doesn't give a shit about the U.S. Constitution. They would use it for toilet paper if given the chance.
~ < a load of Flood-The -Zone bullshit >
BTW, numbskull- the issue has no relation whatsoever to the value of what a looting mob is 'stealing' or to what the monetary value of that is in relation to their lives. The issue is public order, the rule of law, and the rights of all American citizens being violated wholesale by a mob bent on rapine, which, big surprise, doesn't give a shit about the U.S. Constitution. They would use it for toilet paper if given the chance.
BillB
Jan 2, 2023, 3:59:18 PM1/2/23
to
BillB
Jan 2, 2023, 4:03:20 PM1/2/23
to
risky biz
Jan 2, 2023, 5:39:17 PM1/2/23
to
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 1:03:20 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 12:34:52 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:21:37 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > > "The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead." -- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
> > >
> > ~ Of course, riskytard thinks citizens lose all their constitutional rights when the mayor of Bumfuk, USA unilaterally declares martial law, which riskytard claims is well within his or her authority to do. That's what he said, so it must be true! Riskytard has a high IQ, y'know. He said so himself. Such a brilliant legal mind!
> >
~ ~ This fiction you're trying to whip up by starting a new thread is amusing. What I (in reality) think and said can be read in these 4 links:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 12:34:52 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:21:37 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > > "The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead." -- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
> > >
> > ~ Of course, riskytard thinks citizens lose all their constitutional rights when the mayor of Bumfuk, USA unilaterally declares martial law, which riskytard claims is well within his or her authority to do. That's what he said, so it must be true! Riskytard has a high IQ, y'know. He said so himself. Such a brilliant legal mind!
> >
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/bmvLvR3FCgAJ
> > https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/C9EG_S4QCwAJ
> > https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/aS1zLnlUCwAJ
> > https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/8P09bVGoCwAJ
> You said exactly what I said you said.
No, I said what I said which anyone can read by briefly perusing the 4 links I provided above. I'll rest my case on what I actually said which makes what you say I said irrelevant. EVERYONE knows you're a pathological liar.
> > https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/bmvLvR3FCgAJ
> > https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/C9EG_S4QCwAJ
> > https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/aS1zLnlUCwAJ
> > https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/8P09bVGoCwAJ
> You said exactly what I said you said.
~ I quoted binding constitutional law and you specifically said none of it would apply under martial law, which you further asserted can be declared by "municipal authorities," so clearly any mayor would qualify (not to mention anyone else who might be considered a "municipal authority"). You just aren't very bright and don't bother to think before you shoot your mouth off.
Don't look now, dummy, but you've already started off the new year looking about as intelligent as a yard troll.
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.dzCHwBVWWGgRNVEh1FN08wHaE8%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=d0e00493338cb2bcf9868377e0b4c6fc2f39fde419215419e23082b96ddea7fc&ipo=images
VegasJerry
Jan 3, 2023, 2:17:00 PM1/3/23
to
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:52:24 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:02:17 AM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:21:37 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > > "The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is
> > > constitutionally unreasonable.
> > .
> >
> > Well that’s a new one for me. But I’ve been out of the cop business for a long time.
> > Tell me what “Constitutionally unreasonable” means and what powers does it have?
.
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:02:17 AM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:21:37 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > > "The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is
> > > constitutionally unreasonable.
> > .
> >
> > Well that’s a new one for me. But I’ve been out of the cop business for a long time.
> > Tell me what “Constitutionally unreasonable” means and what powers does it have?
> It means a police officer would be violating a suspect's constitutional rights to use lethal force
> against him absent the suspect posing an imminent risk of serious physical harm to someone.
Well that’s as given. I’m still a little vague on “Constitutionally unreasonable.” I know ‘constitutional right’
and ‘against the constitution;’ “I’ve just not heard “Constitutionally unreasonable” use in court. Rather than
dig into something that weird from you, I’ll just let it go and have another glass of wine…
.
> > “If, in the officer’s judgement, a fleeing felon can be a danger to the officer or others (might shoot or
> > kill them) the officer is justified in shooting the fleeing felon.”
> >
> That is not correct.
.
> > “If, in the officer’s judgement, a fleeing felon can be a danger to the officer or others (might shoot or
> > kill them) the officer is justified in shooting the fleeing felon.”
> >
> That is not correct.
Yea, actually it is. Or it was during my POST.
.
> > Yea, them ain’t the exact words. But yes, you resist arrest and can be a lethal danger to the officer
> > or others, you can be shot.
> > Yea, them ain’t the exact words. But yes, you resist arrest and can be a lethal danger to the officer
BillB
Jan 3, 2023, 3:56:55 PM1/3/23
to
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 11:17:00 AM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:52:24 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:02:17 AM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:21:37 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > > > "The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is
> > > > constitutionally unreasonable.
> > > .
> > >
> > > Well that’s a new one for me. But I’ve been out of the cop business for a long time.
> > > Tell me what “Constitutionally unreasonable” means and what powers does it have?
> .
> > It means a police officer would be violating a suspect's constitutional rights to use lethal force
> > against him absent the suspect posing an imminent risk of serious physical harm to someone.
> .
>
> Well that’s as given. I’m still a little vague on “Constitutionally unreasonable.” I know ‘constitutional right’
> and ‘against the constitution;’ “I’ve just not heard “Constitutionally unreasonable” use in court. Rather than
> dig into something that weird from you, I’ll just let it go and have another glass of wine…
> .
>
> > > “If, in the officer’s judgement, a fleeing felon can be a danger to the officer or others (might shoot or
> > > kill them) the officer is justified in shooting the fleeing felon.”
> > >
> > That is not correct.
> .
>
> Yea, actually it is. Or it was during my POST.
No, it's not a subjective test, as you worded it. It's the judgment of a reasonable officer in his or her place. An unreasonable cop could believe virtually anyone is a danger for one reason or another. That would make the rule pointless. No cop is going to admit that he didn't think the guy was a danger but he unloaded on him anyway just out of frustration or anger.
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:52:24 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:02:17 AM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:21:37 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > > > "The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is
> > > > constitutionally unreasonable.
> > > .
> > >
> > > Well that’s a new one for me. But I’ve been out of the cop business for a long time.
> > > Tell me what “Constitutionally unreasonable” means and what powers does it have?
> .
> > It means a police officer would be violating a suspect's constitutional rights to use lethal force
> > against him absent the suspect posing an imminent risk of serious physical harm to someone.
> .
>
> Well that’s as given. I’m still a little vague on “Constitutionally unreasonable.” I know ‘constitutional right’
> and ‘against the constitution;’ “I’ve just not heard “Constitutionally unreasonable” use in court. Rather than
> dig into something that weird from you, I’ll just let it go and have another glass of wine…
> .
>
> > > “If, in the officer’s judgement, a fleeing felon can be a danger to the officer or others (might shoot or
> > > kill them) the officer is justified in shooting the fleeing felon.”
> > >
> > That is not correct.
> .
>
> Yea, actually it is. Or it was during my POST.
VegasJerry
Jan 4, 2023, 10:55:29 AM1/4/23
to
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 12:56:55 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 11:17:00 AM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:52:24 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:02:17 AM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:21:37 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > > > > "The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is
> > > > > constitutionally unreasonable.
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > > Well that’s a new one for me. But I’ve been out of the cop business for a long time.
> > > > Tell me what “Constitutionally unreasonable” means and what powers does it have?
> > .
> > > It means a police officer would be violating a suspect's constitutional rights to use lethal force
> > > against him absent the suspect posing an imminent risk of serious physical harm to someone.
> > .
> >
> > Well that’s as given. I’m still a little vague on “Constitutionally unreasonable.” I know ‘constitutional right’
> > and ‘against the constitution;’ “I’ve just not heard “Constitutionally unreasonable” use in court. Rather than
> > dig into something that weird from you, I’ll just let it go and have another glass of wine…
.
I didn't see any more on your "Constitutionally unreasonable" statement. Is this a legal position?
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 11:17:00 AM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:52:24 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:02:17 AM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:21:37 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > > > > "The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is
> > > > > constitutionally unreasonable.
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > > Well that’s a new one for me. But I’ve been out of the cop business for a long time.
> > > > Tell me what “Constitutionally unreasonable” means and what powers does it have?
> > .
> > > It means a police officer would be violating a suspect's constitutional rights to use lethal force
> > > against him absent the suspect posing an imminent risk of serious physical harm to someone.
> > .
> >
> > Well that’s as given. I’m still a little vague on “Constitutionally unreasonable.” I know ‘constitutional right’
> > and ‘against the constitution;’ “I’ve just not heard “Constitutionally unreasonable” use in court. Rather than
> > dig into something that weird from you, I’ll just let it go and have another glass of wine…
.
A part of a legal finding? A legal argument?
.
.
.
> > .
> >
> > > > “If, in the officer’s judgement, a fleeing felon can be a danger to the officer or others (might shoot or
> > > > kill them) the officer is justified in shooting the fleeing felon.”
> > > >
> > > That is not correct.
> > .
> >
> > Yea, actually it is. Or it was during my POST.
.
> No, it's not a subjective test, as you worded it.
Unless that's a part of your - or some finding - "Constitutionally unreasonable."
.
.
> It's the judgment of a reasonable officer in his or her place.
Like I said, and was taught in POST.
> It's the judgment of a reasonable officer in his or her place.
.
.
> An unreasonable cop could believe virtually anyone is a danger for one reason or another.
> That would make the rule pointless.
.
> An unreasonable cop could believe virtually anyone is a danger for one reason or another.
> That would make the rule pointless.
No; it would make the officer wrong. The rule is still good. Misusing a rule does not invalidate the rule.
.
.
> No cop is going to admit that he didn't think the guy was a danger but he unloaded on him anyway
> just out of frustration or anger.
.
> No cop is going to admit that he didn't think the guy was a danger but he unloaded on him anyway
> just out of frustration or anger.
No shit..
Mossingen
Jan 9, 2023, 1:29:20 AM1/9/23
to
"BillB" wrote in message
news:b6534d95-f2e5-470d...@googlegroups.com...
___________
As I recall, Garner was a civil rights case, not even a criminal case.
news:b6534d95-f2e5-470d...@googlegroups.com...
As I recall, Garner was a civil rights case, not even a criminal case.
Mossingen
Jan 9, 2023, 1:31:05 AM1/9/23
to
.
"BillB" wrote in message
news:0c91aea4-85f9-40bc...@googlegroups.com...
__________
Yes, it's always an objective test. I think you're wasting your time here,
Bill.
"BillB" wrote in message
news:0c91aea4-85f9-40bc...@googlegroups.com...
Yes, it's always an objective test. I think you're wasting your time here,
Bill.
BillB
Jan 9, 2023, 2:14:28 AM1/9/23
to
VegasJerry
Jan 9, 2023, 2:12:55 PM1/9/23
to
On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:29:20 PM UTC-8, Mossingen wrote:
> "BillB" wrote in message
> news:b6534d95-f2e5-470d...@googlegroups.com...
> "The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects,
> whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not
> better that all felony suspects die than that they escape.
.
> news:b6534d95-f2e5-470d...@googlegroups.com...
> "The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects,
> whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not
> better that all felony suspects die than that they escape.
That's why it's not used on "'all' felony suspects."
.
.
> Where the suspect
> poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm
> resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly
> force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight
> escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little
> slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer
> may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead." --
.
> Where the suspect
> poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm
> resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly
> force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight
> escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little
> slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer
> may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead." --
Yea, on "nondangerous suspects."
.
risky biz
Jan 9, 2023, 2:16:50 PM1/9/23
to
~ On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:21:37 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
~ "The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead." -- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
>
~ Of course, riskytard thinks citizens lose all their constitutional rights when the mayor of Bumfuk, USA unilaterally declares martial law, which riskytard claims is well within his or her authority to do. That's what he said, so it must be true! Riskytard has a high IQ, y'know. He said so himself. Such a brilliant legal mind!
'Martial law is the imposition of direct military control of normal civil functions or 👉suspension of civil law by a government👈, especially in response to an emergency where civil forces are overwhelmed..'
'The martial law concept in the United States is closely tied with the right of habeas corpus, which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The ability to suspend habeas corpus is related to the imposition of martial law.[39] Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law
The Posse Comitatus Act does not restrict a state government
'The Act does not prevent the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor.'
👉'The title of the Act comes from the legal concept of posse comitatus, the authority under which a county sheriff, or other law officer, can conscript any able-bodied person to assist in keeping the peace.'👈
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
'The Great Chicago Fire was a conflagration that burned in the American city of Chicago during October 8–10, 1871.
On October 11, 1871, General Philip H. Sheridan came quickly to the aid of the city and was placed in charge by 👉a proclamation, given by mayor Roswell B. Mason👈:
"The Preservation of the Good Order and Peace of the city is hereby intrusted to Lieut. General P.H. Sheridan, U.S. Army."[9]
To protect the city from looting and violence, the city was put under martial law for two weeks under Gen. Sheridan's command structure with a mix of regular troops, militia units, police, and a specially organized civilian group "First Regiment of Chicago Volunteers." Former Lieutenant-Governor William Bross, and part owner of the Tribune, later recollected his response to the arrival of Gen. Sheridan and his soldiers:
"Never did deeper emotions of joy overcome me. Thank God, those most dear to me and the city as well are safe."
For two weeks Sheridan's men patrolled the streets, guarded the relief warehouses, and enforced other regulations. On October 24 the troops were relieved of their duties and the volunteers were mustered out of service.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chicago_Fire
Mayor Walter C. Jones declares martial law after the Great Galveston hurricane, 1900.
Covered Area: Galveston, Texas
State or Federal: State
Duration: September 11, 1900 – September 21, 1900 (8–9 days)
Precipitating Event: Great Galveston hurricane
👉Declaring Authority: Mayor Walter C. Jones👈
Terminating Authority: Mayor Walter C. Jones
Relevant Presidential Proclamations or Executive Orders: None
Civilians Tried by Military Tribunal? Yes
Related Litigation: 43 African Americans tried by court martial, convicted, and ordered shot
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/guide-declarations-martial-law-united-states#top
risky biz
Jan 9, 2023, 2:18:22 PM1/9/23
to
~ On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:52:24 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:02:17 AM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:21:37 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > > "The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is
> > > constitutionally unreasonable.
> > .
> >
> > Well that’s a new one for me. But I’ve been out of the cop business for a long time.
> > Tell me what “Constitutionally unreasonable” means and what powers does it have?
> It means a police officer would be violating a suspect's constitutional rights to use lethal force against him absent the suspect posing an imminent risk of serious physical harm to someone.
> > “If, in the officer’s judgement, a fleeing felon can be a danger to the officer or others (might shoot or
> > kill them) the officer is justified in shooting the fleeing felon.”
> >
> That is not correct.
> > Yea, them ain’t the exact words. But yes, you resist arrest and can be a lethal danger to the officer or
> > others, you an be shot.
~ The suspect does not have to pose a "lethal danger" to be shot. That is not the test. The point is that law enforcement has no right to shoot a looter running away from the Dollar General with an armful of trinkets, contrary what riskytard believes.
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:02:17 AM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:21:37 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> > > "The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is
> > > constitutionally unreasonable.
> > .
> >
> > Well that’s a new one for me. But I’ve been out of the cop business for a long time.
> > Tell me what “Constitutionally unreasonable” means and what powers does it have?
> It means a police officer would be violating a suspect's constitutional rights to use lethal force against him absent the suspect posing an imminent risk of serious physical harm to someone.
> > “If, in the officer’s judgement, a fleeing felon can be a danger to the officer or others (might shoot or
> > kill them) the officer is justified in shooting the fleeing felon.”
> >
> That is not correct.
> > Yea, them ain’t the exact words. But yes, you resist arrest and can be a lethal danger to the officer or
> > others, you an be shot.
risky biz
Jan 9, 2023, 2:19:46 PM1/9/23
to
~ On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 11:14:28 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
~ It was, but the Court still held that Garner had a constitutional right not to be shot. I don't see why it would matter if it was a civil or criminal case.
~ It was, but the Court still held that Garner had a constitutional right not to be shot. I don't see why it would matter if it was a civil or criminal case.
BillB
Jan 9, 2023, 3:21:32 PM1/9/23
to
risky biz
Jan 9, 2023, 8:32:01 PM1/9/23
to
~ On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 12:21:32 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
🤡 Blabbermouth
~ ^^ incapable of learning.
➡️'Martial law is the imposition of direct military control of normal civil functions or 👉suspension of civil law by a government👈, especially in response to an emergency where civil forces are overwhelmed..'
🤡 Blabbermouth
~ ^^ incapable of learning.
➡️'Martial law is the imposition of direct military control of normal civil functions or 👉suspension of civil law by a government👈, especially in response to an emergency where civil forces are overwhelmed..'
BillB
Jan 10, 2023, 6:47:41 AM1/10/23
to
risky biz
Jan 10, 2023, 12:03:02 PM1/10/23
to
The facts I enumerated above make it obvious that you do not have the first clue what you have been blabbing about. Anyone can see that so go ahead and put on a brave face and repeatedly declare otherwise. Do you think anyone is falling for it?
More nonsense below:
'I have been studying Canadian and US comparative law for over 30 years.'
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/eiSUduTpwPc/m/YxZm1FcWCwAJ
'Remember, I am an expert in comparative law (with respect to the US and Canada). I could write a couple of books on it.'
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/pl7AE_3ir1g/m/jw9bR1qSAgAJ
'The last case I argued would have been in 2000. I moved on to greener pastures. Running small city family, criminal, and personal injury cases was not the highest use of my enormous talents.'
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/j0LjlxCewS0/m/c4n1CwYWAgAJ
So you had time to be an expert in 'comparative law (with respect to the US and Canada)' while 'running small city family, criminal, and personal injury cases'? LOL.
BillB
Jan 10, 2023, 2:35:23 PM1/10/23
to
0 new messages