Justices rule that fleeing the police is a violent felony

Yurt said:
Justices rule that fleeing the police is a violent felony

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/06/09/us.scotus.car.chases/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

from what i've skimmed of the decision so far....excellent decision

i'm sure sty will agree with me :)
Click to expand...

I have to side with Scalia and Kagan on this one.

Isn't it curious though, that lots of people who claim to be freedom loving people are quite willing to trade that freedom for security theater, as in trusting the police and the courts to protect them when it's quite obviously the opposite?

how do you like your police state now?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I have to side with Scalia and Kagan on this one.

Isn't it curious though, that lots of people who claim to be freedom loving people are quite willing to trade that freedom for security theater, as in trusting the police and the courts to protect them when it's quite obviously the opposite?

how do you like your police state now?
Click to expand...

since i don't live in a police state, i can't offer you my opinion on the matter

why shouldn't it be a violent felony?
 
Yurt said:
since i don't live in a police state, i can't offer you my opinion on the matter

why shouldn't it be a violent felony?
Click to expand...
I haven't read the decision by my asnwer would be because fleeing a police officer in and of it self is not an act of violence. In my mind there would have to be aggravating factors to warrant a "violent felons" conviction. This is a decision that is ripe for abuse. All a police officer would have to do is claim you didn't pull over fast enough ergo you were "fleeing" and BOOM.....you are now a convicted felon with all the loss or rights and privelages that signifies. That's far to much authority to give to either police officers or the State. Now if the act of "fleeing an officer" has well defined aggravating circumstances, I have no problems with that. Those clowns who flee police officers on the highway in high speed pursuits that endanger the lives of the public, police officers and emergency personel deserve a felon conviction.
 
Yurt said:
since i don't live in a police state, i can't offer you my opinion on the matter

why shouldn't it be a violent felony?
Click to expand...

you live in a police state, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

think about it......for you and me, ignorance of the law is no excuse, right? but cops aren't expected to know ALL the laws, so if they arrest someone and that person didn't actually do anything to get arrested, what happens to the cop? nothing, nada, zip. They get qualified immunity for reasons like 'the law was not CLEARLY established', or that they have a good faith exception.

when the police, who WE THE PEOPLE give extreme power and authority to, are not required to know all the laws like you and I are, and then are given extra rights or extra protections/exemptions from following those laws, that is a police state.

unless that individual fleeing makes an attempt to actually hit someone or something, then it is nonviolent. keep this kind of police state crap up and we'll see jaywalking as a violent felony because someone else could be hurt if a car swerves to miss the jaywalker and hits an innocent bystander or themselves in the car.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I haven't read the decision by my asnwer would be because fleeing a police officer in and of it self is not an act of violence. In my mind there would have to be aggravating factors to warrant a "violent felons" conviction. This is a decision that is ripe for abuse. All a police officer would have to do is claim you didn't pull over fast enough ergo you were "fleeing" and BOOM.....you are now a convicted felon with all the loss or rights and privelages that signifies. That's far to much authority to give to either police officers or the State. Now if the act of "fleeing an officer" has well defined aggravating circumstances, I have no problems with that. Those clowns who flee police officers on the highway in high speed pursuits that endanger the lives of the public, police officers and emergency personel deserve a felon conviction.
Click to expand...

i'm pretty sure this will only apply to your last example...however, you raise valid concerns
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you live in a police state, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

think about it......for you and me, ignorance of the law is no excuse, right? but cops aren't expected to know ALL the laws, so if they arrest someone and that person didn't actually do anything to get arrested, what happens to the cop? nothing, nada, zip. They get qualified immunity for reasons like 'the law was not CLEARLY established', or that they have a good faith exception.

when the police, who WE THE PEOPLE give extreme power and authority to, are not required to know all the laws like you and I are, and then are given extra rights or extra protections/exemptions from following those laws, that is a police state.

unless that individual fleeing makes an attempt to actually hit someone or something, then it is nonviolent. keep this kind of police state crap up and we'll see jaywalking as a violent felony because someone else could be hurt if a car swerves to miss the jaywalker and hits an innocent bystander or themselves in the car.
Click to expand...

if you're in a car, pull over. car chases are almost always violent. this is not an extreme power, the police already have the power to pull you over, this merely increases the punishment for not pulling over. this is not a new power.
 
Yurt said:
if you're in a car, pull over. car chases are almost always violent. this is not an extreme power, the police already have the power to pull you over, this merely increases the punishment for not pulling over. this is not a new power.
Click to expand...

in what instances do police have the power to pull you over?
 
Yurt said:
i believe the standard is reasonable suspicion of an actual crime
Click to expand...

of course the officers word is more trustworthy in a court of law than any defendant would be, so a cop can make up any reason whatsoever and call it reasonable suspicion.

so how do you like your police state?
 
he seems to love the police state. All it takes for a police state to form is for good people to ignore the threat because they're afraid to be called unpatriotic or a conspiracy theorist.
 
the police state is here because the courts demand immediate and total submission to state authority and then IF there are rights violations, the courts will sort it out. In other words, according to the state, we the people no longer are determinative of our rights and liberties, but the state does. It continues because people like Yurt approve of it.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the police state is here because the courts demand immediate and total submission to state authority and then IF there are rights violations, the courts will sort it out. In other words, according to the state, we the people no longer are determinative of our rights and liberties, but the state does. It continues because people like Yurt approve of it.
Click to expand...

you always get so pissy when i disagree with anything you say. you can and should lawfully resist and unlawful arrest. but don't expect the cops to just let you go.

you take my words out of context and put words in my mouth all the time. it gets old. if you don't like the law, either change it, leave the country, or simply keep bitching and moaning from your couch
 
SmarterThanYou said:
of course the officers word is more trustworthy in a court of law than any defendant would be, so a cop can make up any reason whatsoever and call it reasonable suspicion.

so how do you like your police state?
Click to expand...

fucking bullshit....stops get thrown out all the time

stop acting like a retard on this subject

and stop acting like an idiot when you ask me for the current legal standard and when i give it to you, you act as if it is MY OPINION...stop asking me questions if you're just going to attribute any answer i give as my opinion.
 
yurt, you should know that the 'law' and todays 'legal standard' are not nearly the same. and i'm not pissy because you and I disagree, i'm disappointed that you accept the police state as 'progress'.
 
We face a Congress that puts forth an ever-increasing volume of laws in general, and of criminal laws in particular. It should be no surprise that as the volume increases, so do the number of imprecise laws. And no surprise that our indulgence of imprecisions that violate the Constitution encourages imprecisions that violate the Constitution. Fuzzy, leave-the-details-to-be-sorted-out-by-the-courts legislation is attractive to the Congressman who wants credit for addressing a national problem but does not have the time (or perhaps the votes) to grapple with the nittygritty. In the field of criminal law, at least, it is time to call a halt. I do not think it would be a radical step—indeed, I think it would be highly responsible—to limit ACCA to the named violent crimes. Congress can quickly add what it wishes. Because the majority prefers to let vagueness reign, I respectfully dissent.

j. Scalia
 
SmarterThanYou said:
We face a Congress that puts forth an ever-increasing volume of laws in general, and of criminal laws in particular. It should be no surprise that as the volume increases, so do the number of imprecise laws. And no surprise that our indulgence of imprecisions that violate the Constitution encourages imprecisions that violate the Constitution. Fuzzy, leave-the-details-to-be-sorted-out-by-the-courts legislation is attractive to the Congressman who wants credit for addressing a national problem but does not have the time (or perhaps the votes) to grapple with the nittygritty. In the field of criminal law, at least, it is time to call a halt. I do not think it would be a radical step—indeed, I think it would be highly responsible—to limit ACCA to the named violent crimes. Congress can quickly add what it wishes. Because the majority prefers to let vagueness reign, I respectfully dissent.

j. Scalia
Click to expand...

it's like they get paid by the word and the number of laws they create. it is assinine the number of laws created simply for the sake of creating laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top