An officer can detain someone for investigative purposes without arresting them. Such a person does not have the right to just leave when they feel like it - that is resisting arrest even if no arrest has yet been effected.
She is factually not guilty. Period. You contest this because you are a lying sack of shit.
“Murder” is defined as unlawful killing. “Unlawful” requires conviction in a court of law. Period. You’re playing games with legal and common usage of terms because you are a lying sack of shit.
The girl was factually not guilty of resisting arrest. Period. You do not acknowledge this because you are a lying sack of shit.
Let me explain this to you in small words because you are a moron: the girl did not resist arrest. Period.
Now stop lying about it, you lying sack of shit.
Bunch of dickheads, the lot of you, for engaging with Smapti at such length. You’re the idiots Miller was talking about.
False. The video doesn’t lie.
I am playing no games. You’re the one pretending that a person cannot simultaneously be legally innocent and factually guilty and dodging the question. Is it a lie to say OJ Simpson is a murderer?
You have no facts. All you have is childish insults. It’s plain to any partial observer who’s correct here and it’s not you.
A court of law determined that her behavior was not resisting arrest. I understand that you don’t believe in the rule of law and seek to replace it with your own personal moral judgement, but that’s not how we do things in Smapti-town.
If you believe in the rule of law, then OJ is factually not guilty of murder. Do you believe in the rule of law?
I have the fact that the girl is factually not guilty of breaking the law. Period. Also, you are a fucking moron and a liar.
The law says she is not guilty. Smapti says she is guilty, but if the law says she is not guilty then Smapti must conform to the law, then Smapti must say she is not guilty, but Smapti cannot say she is not guilty because Smapti says she is guilty, but she is not guilty… She is guilty but she is not guilty… illogical! Illogical! Please explain! You are human. Only humans can explain their behavior! Please explain!
Wrong. The evidence made available to you on this very thread proves that she did not, and indeed that it was logically impossible for her to do so; one who is not in fact under arrest cannot possibly resist arrest.
Detainment by the police is the definition of “arrest”.
If you’re going to continue clapping your hands over your ears and humming loudly and rocking in place, do be careful not to rock so energetically as to fall off your wall.
False. No trial was ever conducted.
I am doing no such thing. The rule of law does not forbid me from having my own opinion. I do not assert that my opinion is legally binding.
False. It is possible for a factually guilty person to be acquitted.
Is it a lie to say OJ Simpson is a murderer? Answer in three letters or less.
You can stick your fingers in your ears and repeat your mantra as many times as you like, but it won’t erase the video of her resisting arrest.
When you have to resort to name-calling, you’re admitting that you don’t have anything real to base your argument on.
Terry stops have been discussed at length in this thread and in several other threads. It’s like every time a new “controversy” pops up we reset and everyone forgets everything they’ve been taught about these issues before.
No idea. Didn’t see the video. I’m not saying he was right. I was just stating my opinion that cops do not surrender their arrest power at the end of their shift anymore than they surrender their duty to act if they see a crime and what not.
Why was no trial was ever conducted?
Here’s a hint,
If there isn’t enough evidence to convict, you get found not guilty.
If there isn’t enough evidence to indict, you get the charges dropped.
For someone so in love with “Authority” you really don’t seem to have a clue as to how it works.
CMC fnord!
It’s certainly convenient of you to post links to disproofs of your assertions:
Jesus Christ, are you genuinely this stupid?
No need to answer that.
In order for the girl to be guilty of resisting arrest, she must be convicted in court of resisting arrest. The judge heard the charges and dismissed them. Therefore she is legally and factually not guilty of resisting arrest.
I think it’s funny that you believe in the inviolability of the rule of law to such an extent that you are willing to disregard it when you start to lose an internet argument. Rest assured, this does not lower anyone’s opinion of you.
This is of course wrong in our legal system. The court is the only arbiter of guilt. You are thinking of moral guilt, which makes you a hypocrite given how much time you spend railing against people who believe in the concept of moral guilt. You’re probably too stupid to understand that you’re a hypocrite.
Yes.
A court determined that the video did not show her resisting arrest. Apparently you don’t believe in the rule of law, so call her behavior anything you like, you hypocritical lying douchebag.
All I have to base my argument on is reality, facts, and the rule of law. None of which mean anything to you apparently, you disgusting hypocrite.
I like how in all this focus on arrest and detainment, the fact that he threw her up against a car in a choke hold, whipped her around by the hair, and threw her to the ground only to then taser the fuck out of her is getting overlooked here.
I don’t care if the cop did have the right to detain her. It’s obvious he didn’t have the right to assault her with so much force. He is not fit to be a mall cop, let alone a real cop.
I sincerely hope she sues him so hard that even cat food will be too expensive for his budget.
If a man commits a murder and nobody ever finds out, is he therefore not guilty of murder?
I repeat; the rule of law does not forbid me from having my own opinion. I don’t think you understand the meaning of the words you’re using.
No, I’m thinking of factual guilt. “Moral guilt” is not a concept I have any use for.
No trial has been conducted.
And at the time the officer believed he had reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. That’s the entire reason he was prepared to trespass her.
That’s nice. It still doesn’t mean she’s been found not guilty of anything.
Therefore legally and factually the crime of resisting arrest did not occur. Dismissal is better than “Not Guilty”!
“Not Guilty” still means that a crime occurred but the evidence is not sufficient for a conviction.
Dismissal means there isn’t even enough evidence to say a crime occurred.
But someone doesn’t understand the very basic facts of how our system actually works!
CMC fnord!
False. No finding of fact was made.
But it doesn’t mean she’s not guilty of the crime. She has not been acquitted and double jeopardy has not attached. She can still be charged and tried at a later date.
Several people in this thread, actually.
I’m not one of them.
No, a judge found that no crime occurred, that’s less not guilty than NG moran!
CMC fnord!
Dismissal of charges is not a finding that no crime occurred.