If he’s not convicted of murder in a court of law, then he is not guilty of murder. For someone who claims to worship the rule of law the way you do, you are surprisingly ignorant of the law.
You can have any stupid opinion you want. Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, no matter how stupid. However, you’re not entitled to your own set of facts, and the fact is that the girl did not resist arrest.
I understand that you’re not very bright, and your mental illness prevents you from understanding this simple concept, but because the girl was not convicted in a court of law, she is therefore not guilty of resisting arrest.
You should probably stop discussing the law if you’re too stupid to understand the concept of presumption of innocence.
You’re wrong about even this. The girl is factually not guilty. That’s the fact. That’s the way the law works, you stupid idiot. Your opinion is that she’s morally guilty. You’re wrong about that too, but just add it to the list.
No shit, Sherlock.
No he didn’t. Stop using legal terms you don’t understand, you fucking moron.
Unless a person is convicted of a crime, they are presumed innocent. The fact the charges were dismissed means that a conviction will almost certainly never happen. Maybe, in an unlikely future hypothetical the girl will be later tried and convicted. But until that date she is presumed innocent, no matter how much Smapti would like to twist the law to his purposes.
We know he wouldn’t work out on the street because he’s said he would not even save a hypothetical child of his if he, himself, would be endangered, but I bet he may be able to file paperwork.
[Frank Drebin is emptying out his files after being kicked off the force] Frank: Hey! The missing evidence in the Kelner case! My God, he really was innocent! Ed: He went to the chair two years ago, Frank. Frank: Well, uh… [Frank Drebin quickly shoves the evidence back into the file cabinet]
That is correct. It is uncommon for charges to be brought again once a judge has dismissed them.
But that wasn’t the point in the quote.
Mister Nobody is charged with murder. An acquaintance of his was found strangled with his necktie only hours after the two were seen arguing with each other. The Judge in the case dismisses the charges, as there was no physical evidence tying Mister Nobody to the killing, no eyewitnesses either. There was only the coincidence of the argument being directly before the murder.
Now, that fact that Judge dismissed the charges doesn’t mean there was no murder. It doesn’t even mean that Mister Nobody didn’t kill him! It just means there wasn’t enough evidence to sustain the charges.
And we all know that being acquitted at trial means they are innocent in the eyes of the law, but they still could have done the deed. John Gotti got acquitted a lot. O.J. was acquitted. Robert Blake was acquitted.
Point being that charges being dropped or acquitted at trial ain’t the end-all of an argument.
Someone murdered Nicole Brown. In fact, it’s pretty clear to me that OJ is the one who killed her. But it’s also a simple fact that OJ didn’t murder Nicole, because the word “murderer” only applies to someone convicted by a jury of his peers of the act of murder, and that’s not OJ.
Now I wouldn’t bother arguing about the legal definitions of words, because I’m not Bricker, thank god. But our mentally ill friend **Smapti **has an unhealthy and abnormal fixation on the rule of law, so unless he’s legitimately retarded, he understands concepts like presumption of innocence. So when he claims that the officer was justified in manhandling that girl because she was “resisting arrest,” he’s a lying sack of shit, because the girl factually did not resist arrest, just like OJ didn’t commit murder.
Anyway, my whole point is that Smapti claims to hold the rule of law inviolate, but the second he starts to lose an internet argument he throws that shit out the window. So it’s probably not the cornerstone of his ethos the way he claims it is.
Common sense tells us (well, most of us) that throwing a child to the ground and tasing her is an excessive response to a minor “crime” like riding a bicycle. It’s better to risk letting such a minor “criminal” escape than to risk injuring her.
But is this common-sense also reflected in police training? Or is my “common sense” wrong? And why hasn’t that officer been fired?
It was the straw that broke the camel’s back. There was a 17 day hunger strike against Suhr that only ended last week and now this. Let’s see if firing Suhr has any effect on the persistent problems that have plagued the SFPD.
Another horrible story, in this instance, lacking a racial element. I think it is clear that Mrs. Sherman realized the Police were making the situation gravely more dangerous for her son, and in the absence of a threat to anyone else they should have left. But no, they have their blood up, and don’t put away their tasers until they defeat their enemy.
