Technically true, but I appreciate the context that it gives, i.e., how other LEOs might have reacted under different rules on taser use.
http://www.pixiq.com/article/idaho-police-sodomize-man-with-taser:
Dang, the Boise Ombudsman was not impressed. Oh well, back to the drawing board.
You mean that the Boise Ombudsman should have reviewed best practices in the USA, Canada and Zimbabwe, rather than just best practices in the USA and Canada, when making his special report on taser use?
Or is it that because Coeur d’Alene is at the other end of the state from Boise and is nowhere near Boise’s jurisdiction, making the Ombudsman’s special report no more relevant than how it works in Zimbabwe?
Seriously, examining how it works in other relevant jurisdictions is the norm in policy making, particularly when it comes to policing in Canada and the USA.
In any event, there is little difference between Canada’s “causing bodily harm, or the member believes on reasonable grounds, that the subject will imminently cause bodily harm” and “immediate threat of physical harm” as recommended by Boise’s Ombudsman.
http://www.boiseombudsman.org/media/2264/Taser_Use_by_BPD.pdf:
Besides, if I have my way, Idaho will become part of Canada. From a post in 2002:
Boy, you got that right. I’ve been reading up on this stuff over the last couple of days (figure it’s only a matter of time before I encounter one, as Muffin did), and “mind-bending” doesn’t begin to describe it.
Wow, that is some industrial strength crazy. This Freeman bullshit reminds me of a guy in collage who swore that if you were planning to drive drunk, always keep a beer in the front seat. Then, if a cop pulls you over, you can step out onto the shoulder, crack open the beer, and chug it. That way, the cop wont be able to prove your blood alcohol level while operating the vehicle. Even when I was a naive 18 year old, I couldn’t believe anyone would get away with that.
I don’t know how I missed these Freeman people. How hilarious is it that people think you can outwit a long established system like the United States Judicial branch with a few codewords, leaving all the government shaking their heads and wandering away in defeat, muttering “Aw Man!” like Swiper the fox?
As for the tasing, must have been a low setting. Robert barely shouts “Ow” before he’s back to spouting nonsense jargon. I’m sure he was just fine. I’m also sure he’s learned absolutely nothing from his experience.
The thing that I wonder is: Do they honestly believe that the people who developed the Constitution of the United States did not intend it to apply to actual human beings?
Well, almost, sort of, in a round about way, on occasion, it might to some degree (weasel words, weasel words, weasel words), help the drunk if the drunk broke the seal in front of witnesses and chuged down a fair bit of hard alcohol, and then spilled the rest of the bottle.
If the amount of alcohol is known and the time of consumption is known, it is possible to estimate what the person’s BAC would have been at the time of testing. By comparing this with what it actually was at the time of testing, it is possible to estimate what the person’s BAC was prior to testing. If the person chugs a lot of hard liquor, and spills a lot, and is not tested until the alcohol has had time to enter the blood, then it will no longer be possible to estimate what the pre-chug BAC was because the amount of alcohol that was chugged is not known due to the spillage.
That usually makes it impossible to prove blowing over and unless there is other evidence (e.g. witnesses seeing drinking shortly prior to the collision), it may make it impossible to prove impaired. Fortunately, there is often other evidence.
When neither blowing over or impaired can be proven, it is still usually possible to nail the person with obstruction of justice if they consumed alcohol immediately after the collision. The penalty may be less for obstruction than for impaired causing death (it is where I live: max 10 v. max life).
A good example of this is RCMP Officer Robinson, in B.C., who when off duty had a collision with a motocycle, whose rider was killed. He walked home, had a couple of shots of vodka, and walked back to the scene of the collision. Since the amount of vodka consumed was not known (they were not measured shots), it was not possible to nail him for blowing over, and there was no witness evidence of his being impaired prior to the collision. He ended up being convicted this summer on obstruction, so he faced 10 years rather than life.
He went on paid leave for a few years while the matter made its way through the courts, and when it came to sentencing, he played the alcoholic card (sentencing should try to rehabilitate him) and the aboriginal card (pay particular attention to aboriginals when trying to find sentences that do not incude incarceration), such that all he ended up with was a month of house arrest, eleven months of overnight curfew, and alcoholism treatment. Just as he was about to be sentenced, he quit his job, thus avoiding the administrative hearing he was facing. All in all, he could have been facing life, but got off without jail time, so in all probability, it worked for him. He had lucky cards and he played his hand well.
Coincidentally Robinson had previously been the leader of a group of officers who tasered a man to death. A fellow from Poland who did not speak any English flew in to Vancouver in the early afternoon to begin immigration. At the airport, it took many hours to process him, and in the meantime his waiting mother was told he had not arrived, so she went home. Eventually he ended up on his own in the airport, late at night, and was tired and frustrated, so he acted out by throwing a computer screen and a very small table on the ground, well away from anyone. Police arrived, were advised that he did not speak English, and then approached him and verbally commanded him, so he retreated and picked up the stapler that Gorsnak referred to earlier in this thread. At no time was anyone in any danger. The police zapped him five times, and he died. Here’s the video: http://youtu.be/IPe_hf7aBXM . This led to a major inquiry into taser use (Braidwood Inquiry). The description that the police officers gave of the person’s behaviour was so greatly different than that given by the other witnesses and shown by the video that perjury charges were brought. Robinson is still facing the perjury charge.
The Braidwood Inquiry recommended that tasers should only be used if there is bodily harm or imminent bodily harm. It used the National Use of Force Framework, which Canadian and American police had previously developed, which, et alia, broke behaviour down in categories such as passive resisting and active resisting. The National Use of Force Framework was used in the RCMP taser policy (see my post on page one of this thread), and both the Braidwood Inquiry and the National Use of Force Framework were used by the Complaints Commission released earlier this week (again refer to my post on page one), recommending that a person being active resistant is not sufficient to justify taser use in Canada – there must be bodily harm or imminent bodily harm, as has also been recommended in Boise (threat of physical harm).
Just out of idle curiosity, what is the legal justification that allows judges to ban video cameras from courtrooms? Is it just one of those “he’s a judge, it’s his courtroom, therefore what he says goes” things, or is there more to it than that?
-Not in any way, shape, or form a lawyer.
Under common law, the judge controls the courtroom. Statute law can change that by espressly banning cameras or expressly permitting cameras.
Can someone show me the toe shoes? I don’t know what you’re talking about.
StG
I thought maybe it was these.
I wonder if he had any real business with the courts, or if he just wanted to show of his magic words?
StG
Holy shit, those are . . . something. Really something.
Parking ticket. He needs to stop loaning his car to his birth certificate.
Thank you for introducing me to Rational Wiki. 
See, I immediately pictured these…
Apparently, he did. In searching for more on this, I found that he got a ticket for riding his bike at night, without a light. This was his chance to fight it. He kept saying he needed to speak with the prosecutor, so I’m guessing he was going to use his magic words in his conversation with the prosecutor.
If you had business in the court, would you want some stranger recording the proceedings and putting it on the internet?
Probably not.
No, as always with these sorts, the original Constitution was perfection incarnate. It all seems to have gone to hell in 1871 or thereabouts, with the formation of the District of Columbia. Details in the conspiracy mother lode, sort of. If you can figure out a coherent narrative from that, you’re ahead of me.
Best quote:
[QUOTE=a rambling nutter]
"All Rule comes from “District of Columbia” which is run by the Gnostic Priesthood of the undisclosed mystery Babylon.
[/QUOTE]
Naturally, the Knights Templar and the Masons are involved.
Not saying that our friend Robert believes everything in this website, but this is the kind of place he’s gleaning his information from.
I’m not sure if I understand. Are you saying you believe the flag nonsense? There is no case law about what a particular flag in a courtroom means. There could be a flag with gold trim, no trim, no flag or a Mickey Mouse flag. It makes no difference.