By the way, another aspect of civil disobedience is the acceptance by the practitioner of the legal consequences of such disobedience. This was emphasized by Dr. King. Civil disobedience was overtly political protest. It was not the exercise of legal rights but the assertion of civil rights.
I note this to further point out the differences between the Civil Rights era protestors and the type of resistance being proposed in this thread, for which the proposers emphatically *do not *wish to see negative legal consequences.
You should direct this question to the other side, not me. I am very aware that there is a difference between violent and non-violent resistant. Others seem to think that compliance with an officer is more important than exerting your civil rights, no matter how unreasonable that officer is.
Was Currie violent? Or just angry? Violent should be met with violence, and I think police officers should be authorized to defend themselves against violent retaliation. But I don’t think justifiable anger justifies violence. I don’t think a person should be pepper-sprayed for mouthing off to any agent of the government. The slippery-slope is just waiting for us if we are willing to shrug shit like this away.
Whoa. That sounds pretty simple. I wonder why we have the judicial system at all then. We could just get rid of an entire branch of government by giving everyone legal training. A lawyer or two in every household and voila! Instant legal karma for everyone. (Of course, the subsequent arguments about summary justice might get a little messy, but you can’t make an omelet etc.)
In all seriousness, can you see the inherent absurdity of your expectations regarding the ascertainment of lawful action? Authorizing the ‘educated’ citizenry to perform such ascertainments ad hoc and in contravention of the opinion of the supposedly also educated LEO’s on the scene is not exactly a recipe for heightened social order. In fact, it’s entirely counter to the ‘due process’ of law we all so cherish in our rhetoric. That due process involves deliberative review and representation of arguments from all parties. Not snap judgements in the heat of the moment.
Few would disagree with stringent policy and procedural safeguards against the abuse of authority, and few would think such safeguards could ever completely prevent abuse. Probably most Americans would at least consider the proposition that the policies and procedures of most of our municipal and state police departments may need outside review and remediation. But few would want to see individual citizens empowered to make those decisions case by case, based on their own ‘educated’ opinions.
The term for that form of government is anarchy. I don’t get the impression that’s what you think you’re advocating, ywtf, but in effect, it is.
In my view, the potential legal repercussions for resisting an abusive law-breaking cop is separate issue from whether we have an inherent right to resist an abusive law-breaking cop.
In a corrupt world, there is always the possibility that a citizen will be prosecuted for sticking up for themselves, regardless of whether the cop was wrong or not. Many a dystopic fantasy bears this out. I don’t think this possibility should interfere with an individual’s right to exercise self-defense.
If Currie had shot and killed the cops, there is a good chance he’d be prosecuted. No one is deluded to think otherwise.
If a cop pulls you over and demands a blow job, would you have to be lawyer to figure this was unlawful conduct? Would you have to consult with the judicial system if a cop broke through your window to confiscate your computer?
Good God, if the typical NRA member was as passive as some of yall, all a cop would need to do is show up at their door and demand they hand over all their guns and ammo. Wouldn’t even need to explain why, just threaten to pepper-spray them unless they complied. Bye bye 2nd amendment. Bye bye right to protect one’s home from the threat of an oppressive Big Brother. Bye bye everything.
No, I think many “others” are responding to the proposition that physical resistance to unreasonable actions is justified. There may be a few Smapties et al who feel compliance is of utmost importance, but your principle “other siders” in this thread seem to be uncomfortable with the blanket assertion of rights to fight back if you think you’re being repressed. (“Come and see the violence inherent in the system!”)
If only someone on the “other side” had stated those questions so simply. Surely they wouldn’t have been shouted at as police apologists or anything. Because that would be a disproportionate response, right?
Bullshit. Of course it’s justifiable to be angry, or to feel unfairly treated when one has done nothing improper. It’s also permissible to speak harshly to LEO’s you’re angry with. And if it turns out that’s all Currie did, then the police in this situation WERE WRONG to have pepper-sprayed him. But we don’t know that, and in fact it’s been asserted by the police that Currie struck one of the officers while being verbally threatening and uncooperative. That assertion certainly doesn’t close the book on the incident, but it’s also not implausible and would in fact be justification for some form of non-lethal physical response. It may be a bullshit story, but so far I haven’t read any contrary assertion from anyone involved.
No, actually it wasn’t. You’ve no knowledge or experience in tactical operations. You genuinely do not know what you are talking about. That’s not a mean spirited observation, it’s just a basic statement of fact. So lets put this one to bed, okay?
By entering the house the way the police did:
They are able to put anyone else on the defensive. This is important psychologically. It means the police have more control since they are acting rather than reacting, and that is genuinely safer for all parties. It also limits the ability to get to weaponry in the house and limits their opportunity to harm others who may be in the house. It gives those other people a chance to yell out/make a sound for help and know they will be heard.
They are able to leave cleared areas behind them. This both limits their own flank exposure and it provides a path for rescue workers who may be following.
They gain intel on events that may be occurring in the house. ie: Is the furniture knocked over, is the TV missing, is there blood on the floor or walls. Is there evidence of a struggle or robbery in progress or some other crime taking place.
Welcome to Texas. That defense probably won’t fly in most of the rest of the US. Also, High Times is your source? Really? :dubious: (trying not to be snarky here. Trying really hard. ) BTW, when I did the googledyness on the terms “texas man not guilty shooting police” I got 11.5 million hits with multiple different stories on the first page. So apparently it’s open season down there. Reminder though, this case was in NC, I ran the same terms and couldn’t find a case within the first five pages of results where this had occurred.
See here’s where we kinda part ways more significantly. One, lets remember this isn’t at night, this case occurs during the day, so it’s not as if he’s waking up out of some sort of sleep or something, all confused and dazed. He’s already up and focused, so the cries of “POLICE!” from downstairs shouldn’t have the same impact as someone who was in a deep sleep. In this case we know they didn’t because he came down the stairs all “what the hell is going on?” There’s not the same fight or flight reaction. Two, your presumption is taht this is all about race and that if he was white, the police just say “Oh, you’re white, well we’ll just stop our felony investigation at this point and go get a donut”. More or less. But the thing is, that isn’t what they do. They have done an exigent entry on a robbery in progress. At that point, they ARE going to sweep the house, and they ARE going to verify the identity of everyone inside regardless of color. They are obligated to do so. It’s not a choice. You might ask why? Here’s why. I have your wife hostage. The cops are downstairs. I tell you to tell them to go away or she gets killed first. If in your world the cops walk away as soon as they see a white guy, then bad things happen.
Remember, they have honest belief of an ongoing crime in progress based on the 911 call and witness statement. They don’t stop until they have evidence that contradicts that honest belief. White, black, asiatic, green, or pale sapphire. They check the ID of the dwelling occupants.
Irrelevant. First, again, he’s not a kid. He’s an 18 year old, 5’8" 200lb MAN. He can vote, he can join the military and kill legally. He can drive, give blood, get married and give consent. He can sign a contract or be called as a witness in a case without an advocate. He’s an ADULT, legally and physically. He’s been partially responsible for his actions since he was about six, as we all have. He’s been fully responsible for at least three years at this point. He’s not a “kid”, and hasn’t been for awhile.
I don’t condemn Mr. Currie, but like every adult, he is responsible for his behavior. Once he understands that the police are legitimately in his house (and they are), then HE is responsible for HIS behavior. Good or bad. Just as you are. Just as I am. No more, no less.
You’re a moron. I was responding to someone who wanted such examples. As in:
[QUOTE=LHOD]
Sure, show me the last time police burst into a house with guns drawn and frisked a white guy who was doing nothing more harmful than coming home.
[/QUOTE]
How about if a cop tells you to sit down in your house while he establishes your legal right to be there after a break-in report? Not exactly as clear cut as a demand for fellatio, is it? If you have to resort to extreme cases to justify a general assertion, maybe you should reassess your point of view.
You’re getting more bizarre with your hypotheticals as the thread progresses. Also, you seem to have me confused with someone who cares passionately about mah guns ‘n’ ammo.
So I take it you are indeed proposing some form of anarchy? We’re gonna take that monopoly on violence away from the government and thereby reduce the occurrence of power abuses?
Hey, another good question. But objection your Honor; calls for a conclusion by the witness. All I know is the police report claims he struck the officer on the arm. I didn’t write that report and I can’t vouch for its accuracy.
My personal opinion is they didn’t charge Currie because of some combination of the following: a) he didn’t actually hurt the cop, b) they dealt with the situation at the scene and Currie was, after all, in his own home, c) he’s in foster care, despite being 18 years old, and the foster parents asked nicely, and d) they’re not complete vindictive assholes.
But as someone already said about this and other open questions WE DON’T KNOW. The only thing I can definitely say is “no charges” *does not equal *“no justification for force”. I can say that without in any way asserting that there was a justification.
If I was a cop, and I had asked him to sit and simmer down so we could investigate the matter, and he called me a pig, said he was going to kick my ass, hit my arm, and refused to sit and cooperate what should I do?
I’m sorry I took your post out of context. I did take it for granted that you were a moron.
You posted some total rubbish about statistics in another thread and then accused me of being ignorant. The matter didn’t even require statistics training – just a smidgen of mathematical intuition. Yes, I know about the Dunning–Kruger effect – you’re so stupid you don’t know you’re stupid. But I was annoyed you took it for granted that I knew even less you, i.e. less than zero.
We can start afresh if you’re gracious enough to apologize. Otherwise, I’m afraid you’ll always be Mr. Moron to me.
Why must he sit down in the first place? Are they not able to make a phone call to verify his story unless he’s sitting down? Forcing him to do something he didn’t have to do is unreasonable, IMHO.
The moment he gave them a reason for being on the premises, they should have asked for his foster parents’ phone numbers and gone outside to make the follow-up calls. No comments about the pictures on the wall or any other jackassery. There was no need to make him sit down or do anything. Station an officer in the back in case he tries to exit out the backdoor, and keep one in front. Hell, if that’s not sufficient, call for back-up.
Yes, I understand that I’m backseat quarter-backing a situation without all the facts and with knowledge that the police officers didn’t have at the time. But with the facts that I have, I can say that the police officers could have questioned Currie in a way that would have minimized contact with him so that pepper-spraying wouldn’t have even come into play.
) BTW, when I did the googledyness on the terms “texas man not guilty shooting police” I got 11.5 million hits with multiple different stories on the first page. So apparently it’s open season down there. Reminder though, this case was in NC, I ran the same terms and couldn’t find a case within the first five pages of results where this had occurred.