Police Deputy smashes into home, attacks family for flying flag upside down.

[Jodi]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Regardless of how they’re trained, they still do lie and shade the truth and back each other up. Cops lie all the time. Everybody knows that. It’s not a secret

I don’t know that, and I affirmatively deny that “cops lie all the time.” So let’s see your proof of that statement.

@John Mace[/quote

I don’t see how you can just assume that the home owner’s version is correct. Maybe the cop is lying, maybe not.

This is my position, too. My only point is, the overheated hysteria of the OP notwithstanding, it’s a little early to guess, much less know, what actually happened. But I suppose that position is a little too rational to be as fun as screeching about fascism.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Jodi

I never made that assumption. Point out to me one post – in this thread or anywhere – where I ever have. I’ll wait here.

I didn’t say you did.

You, OTOH, have decided the homeowner is telling the truth and the officer is lying, but you have NO BASIS for that conclusion. There’s no evidence either way, yet you are completely comfortable deciding, based on one article, that they are credible and the officer is not, and posting a thread that erroneously recounts as known fact something that is at best one side of the story.

I find one side more credible than the other. Sue me.

The deputy doesn’t have the burden of proof; the state does.

The Deputy is an agent of the state. he’s the one bringing the charges and any attempted prosecution will depend on his testimony. For all practical purposes, he is the one who’s going to have to prove they assaluted him.

And their innocence of the charges, if they are found so, does not translate to the deputy having broken into their house, much less that he did so to “attack” them.

Yes it does, because their defense is self-defense. Do you agree that if he broke into their hosue they had a right to defend themselves?

Did they have a right to close their own door?

[Jodi]

@askeptic

Wrongo Bucko, wrongfull arrest is no different than assault and you may lawfully defend yourself. I’m am not addressing whether this was a wrongfull arrest but specifically whether we are at the mercy of dishonest cops.

Wrongo Bucko. You may not “lawfully defend yourself” from a wrongful arrest but are expected to submit yourself to it, in the absence of an immediate thread to your personal safety.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Did they have a right to close their own door?

Sure, within reason. You don’t have an unlimited right to shut your door.

From my reading of the full article, the couple aren’t even claiming that they shut the door on him because he was trying to break in, thus incidentally hurting his hand.

They claim they shut the door after refusing to present identification, and that the officer responded by breaking the glass out of their front door and coming in, after which the husband and the officer engaged in a scuffle.

The officer claims they slammed the door shut on him and that prior to that he was not trying to break in.

One side is clearly lying, we aren’t talking about different interpretations of the same event, but one side clearly lying and the other (possibly) telling the truth. I have no idea which is which, and certainly can’t know that from the single article. It may be possible that forensic evidence could possibly show which side is more likely to be true, that is hard to say, though.

In any event, I’m not aware that anyone other than you is arguing that people should have the right to slam their door shut on a police officer’s hand. The couple are claiming they did not even do that.

[Jodi]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I didn’t say you did.

Oh, I see – you were speaking about “some people” in a response directed at me, but you weren’t including me in the “some people.” My mistake. :rolleyes:

I find one side more credible than the other. Sue me.

Nah. I think instead I’ll just gnaw on your leg for awhile for an intellectually dishonest OP.

The Deputy is an agent of the state. he’s the one bringing the charges and any attempted prosecution will depend on his testimony. For all practical purposes, he is the one who’s going to have to prove they assaluted him.

The Deputy does NOT bring charges. This is simply incorrect. The determination to charge any crime is not made by the officer who makes the arrest. Officers can issue citations, but they cannot charge. The fact that the case will ultimately depend on his testimony does not make him the charging entity, or even part of the charging entity; he isn’t.

Yes it does, because their defense is self-defense. Do you agree that if he broke into their hosue they had a right to defend themselves?

Without more information? No.

Did they have a right to close their own door?

On his hand? No. Let’s see your cite to the contrary, which I’ve already asked for once.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Jodi

This is incorrect. The case you want is Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). It did NOT serve to strike down every flag desecration statute in the nation. It would be more accurate to say that it indicates that such statutes will be found unconstitutional, but it did not declare that they are. As I said, the statute is still on the books, has never been repealed, and has never been found unconstitutional.

Sorry but you’re wrong. They said that flag desecration is free speech period and cannot be abridged. That has the AUTOMATIC effect of rendering all state laws null and void.

Cite?

5th Amendment. You do not have to tell a cop who you are. You do not have to provide ID. You do not have to say a word.

So they closed it on his hand, intentionally injuring him? That’s okay in your book?

What is your prrof that they intentionally injured him? They just slammed the door. They might not have known his hand was in the door, but even if they did, he had no right to stick his hand in the door in the first place, so fuck him.

The Buncombe County Prosecutor’s Office begs to differ.

So?

They then could have claimed they did not receive it.

So?

Cite?

4th Amendment.

And cite for even if he does so erroneously, they can then force it closed in a way that injures him?

You’re the one who’s alleging that’s illegal. You’re the one who needs a cite that they CAN’T do it.

The fact that his employer defends his actions makes him a fascist scumbag? That’s a pretty low bar for fascism.

The fact that he defends THESE actions makes him a fascistic scumbag.

You begin to repeat yourself, but you still haven’t shown that that’s what actually happened.

I believe it’s the most credible version of what happened and it’s backed up by multiple witnesses.

Even if the deputy’s version is correct, they STILL didn’t do anything wrong. If you don’t want to get doors slammed on your hand, don’t go around sticking it in other people’s doorways.

[askeptic]

@Jodi

Wrongo Bucko. You may not “lawfully defend yourself” from a wrongful arrest but are expected to submit yourself to it, in the absence of an immediate thread to your personal safety.

Look Jodi, I am not trying to inject myself into your pissing match. But you are wrong as to California law. Wrongfull arrest is a valid defense to resisting arrest in California. There is absolutely no requirement that you submit to arbitrary battery from police officers merely because they are police officers. Again I am not addressing the particular case in the OP.

[John_Mace]

@askeptic

Look Jodi, I am not trying to inject myself into your pissing match. But you are wrong as to California law. Wrongfull arrest is a valid defense to resisting arrest in California. There is absolutely no requirement that you submit to arbitrary battery from police officers merely because they are police officers. Again I am not addressing the particular case in the OP.

This event happened in North Carolina, but according to this cite you cannot resist an arrest just because you think a law is unconstitutional.

What Can I Do to Resist an Unlawful Arrest?

If the state does allow someone to resist an unlawful arrest, there are still several limits on what can be done:

* A person can only use the amount of force that is reasonably necessary.  Some states have limited this even further by refusing to allow any force against police officers performing their authorized duties, regardless of whether the arrest is legal.
* Some states also have exceptions for good faith arrests, where an arrest by a police officer acting in good faith cannot be resisted.
* A person cannot resist arrest because he believes the law under which he is being arrested is unconstitutional.  

[Gfactor]

@Jodi

Wrongo Bucko. You may not “lawfully defend yourself” from a wrongful arrest but are expected to submit yourself to it, in the absence of an immediate thread to your personal safety.

Right.

*llegal police conduct does not justify a defendant interfering with a detention or arrest. See, e.g., Jurco v. State, 825 P.2d 909, 911, 914 (Alaska Ct. App. 1992) (defendant could not resist arrest even though disorderly conduct charge was invalid); People v. Curtis, 450 P.2d 33, 36-37 (Cal. 1969) (duty to refrain from resisting unlawful arrest does not violate Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable seizures); Kessler v. Barowsky, 931 P.2d 641, 650 (Idaho 1997) (person cannot resist arrest if he knows he is being arrested by a police officer); State v. Logan, 654 P.2d 492, 495 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982) (person cannot resist arrest by law enforcement even if he believes arrest is unlawful); State v. Laughlin, 933 P.2d 813, 814-15 (Mont. 1997) (same); Fugere v. State, Taxation and Revenue Dep’t, Motor Vehicle Div., 897 P.2d 216, 223 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995) (legal challenge to unlawful arrest can be raised after the arrest, rather than by resisting arrest); State v. Castle, 616 P.2d 510, 512 (Or. Ct. App. 1980) (generally person cannot resist arrest even when person knows he is innocent); State v. Mather, 626 P.2d 44, 47 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981) (right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure does not create right to react unreasonably to an illegal detention).

American Fork City v. PenaFlores

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

If a police officer is beating the shit out of my wife, do I have a right to defend her. What if he tries to rape her?

[John_Mace]

@Diogenes the Cynic

If a police officer is beating the shit out of my wife, do I have a right to defend her.

Well, it would depend on what your wife was doing. If she was resisting arrest by trying to beat the shit out of the cop, and he was beating the shit out of her to subdue her, then probably not.

What if he tries to rape her?

I’m not aware of any arrest techniques that include rape.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@John Mace

Well, it would depend on what your wife was doing. If she was resisting arrest by trying to beat the shit out of the cop, and he was beating the shit out of her to subdue her, then probably not.
I’m not aware of any arrest techniques that include rape.

I’m not aware of any arrest technique that includes illegally smashing into somebody’s house and attacking them.

[Omegaman]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Regardless of how they’re trained, they still do lie and shade the truth and back each other up. Cops lie all the time. Everybody knows that. It’s not a secret

Why do assume the cop in question is lying? People do lie all the time but I think it’s unfair for you to judge him when the only information you have is a news article. I get that you find the whole situation unacceptable but casting dispersions on someones character ? Come on man. Don’t let your feelings for the situation allow you to judge someone in that way.

[magellan01]

Wow,** Dio**. I’m in favor of repealing all flag desecration statutes, so I’m inclined to side with the couple. Also, a cop once flagrantly lied on the stand in a traffic case I was involved in, so I am well aware that they are quite capable of it. But if a cop comes to your door in order to write you a citation—rightly or wrongly—you are supposed to comply. You can fight it later if you choose. If not, my guess is that you can then be arrested. If you then slam your door on the cops hand, you’re in deep shit. As a previous poster stated, your right to shut your door is not absolute. And then the woman hits the cop, as well? Well, after that, whatever happens to them they got comin’. You DO NOT lay your hands on a cop. It’s really that simple. My guess is that these people are assholes. But we don’t have enough facts to determine that for sure.

Surprisingly you don’t see that. Or is this just you channeling Der Trihs?

[mswas]

Woohoo! Redneck cop vs militant hippies in a battle to the death over the proper display of a graven image!

People take the flag entirely too seriously.

[askeptic]

Gfactor, John M,

All you say is true but the point I am getting at is absent probable cause or a warrant a cop has no authority to arrest you. If he tries to do it absent one of those things then you may assert self defense. Granted your subjective believe is irrelevant it is based on objective facts either the cop had probable cause or a warrant or he didn’t. Are you saying that if a cop walks up to you out of the blue and starts beating you with a baton you are legally required to let him?

[John_Mace]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I’m not aware of any arrest technique that includes illegally smashing into somebody’s house and attacking them.

I’m not aware that we’ve established that happened. It’s one version of the story, which may be true but may not be true. Seems to me you’re just siding with the couple because they were protesting the war and you assume the cop is some right-wing redneck out to teach them traitorous lib’ruls a goddam lesson. That may very well have been the case, and I guess we’ll find out when this goes to court.

[Cerowyn]

A 1997 North Carolina Court of Appeal decision [Roberts v Swain, 126 NC App 712 (96-656)] makes the following statement:

Every person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 478, 83 S.E.2d 100, 102 (1954). However, a person “may use only such force as reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the unlawful restraint of his liberty.” Id. at 479, 83 S.E.2d at 102.

If you can find an online copy of the case, there’s a lot more relevant information; the state.nc.us servers seem to be unavailable to me at the moment. This is a civil case, but is based upon an illegal arrest and resulting events.

[Contrapuntal]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I believe it’s the most credible version of what happened and it’s backed up by multiple witnesses.

*Their *version is backed up by multiple witnesses? Surely you are not referring to the Kuhns as the multiple witnesses, are you? Can a defendant actually back up his own story? Where in the article do independent observers back up *their *version?

[Waverly]

@Diogenes the Cynic

If a police officer is beating the shit out of my wife, do I have a right to defend her. What if he tries to rape her?

Ah, more of your foamy-mouthed hyperbole. In the state of N. Carolina, if a police officer rapes your wife during the course of an arrest, you are allowed to rape the officer back as well as his dog. Any other improbable hyperbolic events you want to add to this scenario in the hopes of justifying your knee jerk reaction?