• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

SO, did Kaepernick have a legit point?

  • Thread starter Thread starter POP
  • Start date Start date
hamster said:
It probably aligns pretty closely with the incidence of resisting arrest.
Click to expand...

You mean like when cops jump on you for no legit reason and just don't screaming "Stop resisting" and the only thing you are charged with is "resisting arrest." How can that be your only charge if you did no crime to "resist arrest" to begin with?

Sometimes I am very disappointed with the low level of thought my fellow humans operate with.

If your only charge is "resisting arrest" what was the crime you committed in order to resist an arrest to begin with? Total bull **** move by cops.
 
POP said:
If your only charge is "resisting arrest" what was the crime you committed in order to resist an arrest to begin with? Total bull **** move by cops.
Click to expand...

The law in basically every state is the following: There is literally no excuse for resisting arrest. California, for example, has Penal Code, § 834a, which provides, "If a person has knowledge, or by the exercise of reasonable care, should have knowledge, that he is being arrested by a peace officer, it is the duty of such person to refrain from using force or any weapon to resist such arrest."

The theory is that if suspects can use force or weapons to resist the arrest on the theory that the arrest is unfounded, then the incidence of violence in arrests will explode. If the suspect believes the arrest is bullshit, then take it to court and win on the merits.

You don't understand the law - you have proven that repeatedly in this thread - and your most recent comment is just another example of that fact.
 
POP said:
You mean like when cops jump on you for no legit reason and just don't screaming "Stop resisting" and the only thing you are charged with is "resisting arrest." How can that be your only charge if you did no crime to "resist arrest" to begin with?

Sometimes I am very disappointed with the low level of thought my fellow humans operate with.

If your only charge is "resisting arrest" what was the crime you committed in order to resist an arrest to begin with? Total bull **** move by cops.
Click to expand...
Your opinion has zero value to me.. Have a nice day.
 
POP said:
How can that be your only charge if you did no crime to "resist arrest" to begin with?
Click to expand...

If a cop pulls you over and let's you off with a warning, he has (momentarily) arrested you without charging you with a crime.

If a cop is arresting someone else, and you protest, you can be charged with resisting (somone else's) arrest.

If resisting arrest is the more serious of the two offenses, a cop might choose not to charge you for the lesser offense.
 
Tibs said:
There is nothing false about the narrative, keep telling yourself that.

<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fshaunking%2Fvideos%2F1139198286119088%2F&show_text=0&width=560" width="560" height="315" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe>
Click to expand...
He also says Hillary should be in jail. Are you going to ignore that, too?
 
POP said:
You obviously don't actually KNOW any black men. They constantly get pulled over for no legit reason, other than their skin is not white.
Click to expand...

I have two neighbors who say BLM is bullshit. One is military. The other is a former world-class Jujitsu champion.

Oh, BOTH are black.
 
Steeltime said:
The law in basically every state is the following: There is literally no excuse for resisting arrest. California, for example, has Penal Code, § 834a, which provides, "If a person has knowledge, or by the exercise of reasonable care, should have knowledge, that he is being arrested by a peace officer, it is the duty of such person to refrain from using force or any weapon to resist such arrest."

The theory is that if suspects can use force or weapons to resist the arrest on the theory that the arrest is unfounded, then the incidence of violence in arrests will explode. If the suspect believes the arrest is bullshit, then take it to court and win on the merits.

You don't understand the law - you have proven that repeatedly in this thread - and your most recent comment is just another example of that fact.
Click to expand...

Clearly that statute should be modified to say that there MUST be an underlying arrestable offense. And the suspect must be charged with it first. Otherwise it's a license for any police officer to legally kidnap a citizen. This further convinces me that we have way too many laws and the state has way too much power.
 
I live in a sprawling hilltop estate walled off from the ne'er do wells. my nearest neighbor is at least a mile away.

thank you, white privilege.
 
I have a few. Please, be specific when addressing them.
 
DBS1970 said:
Clearly that statute should be modified to say that there MUST be an underlying arrestable offense. And the suspect must be charged with it first. Otherwise it's a license for any police officer to legally kidnap a citizen.
Click to expand...

No. You have it 100% wrong. The point is that nobody can resist arrest by a police officer, for any reason.

That prevents suspects from getting into fights with officers on the theory that "the arrest is bullshit." News alert ... most suspects, including those clearly guilty, believe that the "arrest is bullshit."

The court is where the merits of the arrest play out, not in a street scuffle. If we allow suspects to fight the arresting officer because he thinks the arrest is unfounded, get ready for violence on a massive scale stemming from arrests.
 
Steeltime said:
The law in basically every state is the following: There is literally no excuse for resisting arrest. California, for example, has Penal Code, § 834a, which provides, "If a person has knowledge, or by the exercise of reasonable care, should have knowledge, that he is being arrested by a peace officer, it is the duty of such person to refrain from using force or any weapon to resist such arrest."

The theory is that if suspects can use force or weapons to resist the arrest on the theory that the arrest is unfounded, then the incidence of violence in arrests will explode. If the suspect believes the arrest is bullshit, then take it to court and win on the merits.

You don't understand the law - you have proven that repeatedly in this thread - and your most recent comment is just another example of that fact.
Click to expand...

You're just not very bright. I will repeat this for you, since you totally didn't grasp it the first time around.

Cops jump on you for no legit reason and just don't screaming "Stop resisting" and the only thing you are charged with is "resisting arrest." How can that be your only charge if you did no crime to "resist arrest" to begin with?


If your only charge is "resisting arrest" what was the crime you committed in order to resist an arrest to begin with? Total bull **** move by cops.

If they arrest you for a crime, then you must have committed another crime OTHER THAN RESISTING ARREST. Otherwise, you would be be arrested in the first place, so you would have no arrest to resist.

If you can't grasp this, your operating at a 3rd-grade level of thinking.
 
hamster said:
Your opinion has zero value to me.. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

You have proven to have an inferior intellect. And since you are unarmed, when it comes to intelligence, you choose to run away from the assertions, as you lack an ability to refute them. Ideologues lack intelligence. You are the perfect example.

Now, run off and continue your shallow existence. You are an ideal example of what junk food, fluoride, vaccines and lack of exercise will produce: a shallow, weak-minded fool.
 
Pop, I understand an argument you come from. That video you posted, I live in Albuquerque where some of those shootings took place. I'll admit the homeless guy situation was over the top, but most police shootings here have shown why cops shoot first. Most of these suspects have shot/killed cops or civilians. I'm hispanic. Not once in my life have I experienced racism. Even at UGA. Mind you if I grow a goatee or beard I can resemble a muslim of all things. I've been pulled over once in ABQ after a run at night. Left my hoodie over my head. APD officer suspected me, I don't blame him. Bad judgement on my part. Majority of the time are criminals failing to comply with proper procedure
 
POP said:
You're just not very bright. I will repeat this for you, since you totally didn't grasp it the first time around.

Cops jump on you for no legit reason and just don't screaming "Stop resisting" and the only thing you are charged with is "resisting arrest." How can that be your only charge if you did no crime to "resist arrest" to begin with?

If they arrest you for a crime, then you must have committed another crime OTHER THAN RESISTING ARREST. Otherwise, you would be be arrested in the first place, so you would have no arrest to resist.

If you can't grasp this, your operating at a 3rd-grade level of thinking.
Click to expand...

If a police officers says, "You are under arrest" for no legitimate reason, then you undergo the arrest and challenge the arrest in court. I quoted California's ******* statute on this issue, and the law does not give the arrestee the option of resisting the arrest if he thinks the arrest is unfounded.

Further, the fact that you are too stupid to understand the difference between (1) the alleged wrongdoing giving rise to the arrest and (2) the crime of resisting arrest, a completely separate offense, merely underscores your idiocy.

Let me try and explain it in a fashion that even a dumbfuck like you can understand.

Cop gets word that a purse snatcher is in the area. Sees a guy fitting the description of the purse snatcher and says, "You are under arrest." The guy is not the purse snatcher, however, and instead is a visiting college professor, so the arrest is bogus.

Can that guy resist the arrest, knowing that he should not be arrested and has committed no crime? No. Fight the underlying charge in court, not in a street scuffle.

Finally, I appreciate your sage legal analysis, but I cited a ******* statute proving I am right and you are a blithering idiot:

Penal Code, § 834a: "If a person has knowledge, or by the exercise of reasonable care, should have knowledge, that he is being arrested by a peace officer, it is the duty of such person to refrain from using force or any weapon to resist such arrest."

The statute does not reference "legitimate" arrest, does it, asswipe?

So to sum up: (1) Citizens are NOT entitled to resist arrest for any reason, no matter how valid the arrest; (2) you are an idiot and cannot understand basic English; and (3) your purported "knowledge" of the law would not fill a thimble. In terms you may be able to comprehend, here is the status of our debate on this point:

original.gif


POOP (on right) makes his argument. Steeltime (on left) responds. DING, DING, fight over!!
 
Steeltime always keeping the brother down.
 
POP, you may now scoot away with your tail between your legs.

The phrase has been bastardized through the centuries - Never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man - and attributed to many: William Shakespeare, Mark Twain, Oscar Wilde, Winston Churchill, Abby Buchanan Longstreet, Frank Fay, Pierre de Roman, Joey Adams, Apocryphal.

Regardless who penned it, they clearly wrote it about you. Battling with wits vs. someone who has none (POP) is pointless. You can't accept facts, you don't understand them, you try to interpret law when you've no concept of it's basis.

Arguing with a fool is a losing proposition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Vincent
The Racist History of the Republican Party
Replies
11
Views
2K
Vincent
Vincent
Tim Steelersfan
Welcome to Minneapolis...errr...Little Mogadishu
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
Phinnster
Phinnster
Superman
Senior member of Armed Services Committee spoke w/foreign ambassadors - OUTRAGE!
Replies
18
Views
1K
Spike
Spike
Superman
Have we discussed the Clinton Body Count?
Replies
10
Views
2K
Ron Burgundy
Ron Burgundy
X
Russia to deny us to international space station
Replies
20
Views
4K
Rod Farva
R
Top