no right to resist being raped by a cop?

SmarterThanYou said:
The Patriot Act has been used in1,618 drug cases and only 15 terrorism cases.
Click to expand...

that sucks

i wonder in how many state and local cases they are used or used to apply leverage to get information about other cases

what law enforcement officers and agencies do without drug laws to prop them up
 
Yurt said:
i read it differently than you.
Click to expand...

Yurt, i came across some interesting information today that will show you why we should all be deathly afraid of Kentucky v. King ruling.


State v. Lusby

Police paid a visit to Lusby’s apartment to investigate a disturbance. She quickly grew tired of the uninvited company – what decent person wouldn’t? – and went into her apartment, closing the door behind her. One of the officers committed an act of criminal trespass and announced that Lusby was under arrest for “obstruction” and “resistance.” At one point the bully caught an elbow in the face from the victim, a small down-payment on what he deserved – but enough to earn Busby a charge of felonious assault on an officer. She was also charged with drug possession on the basis of evidence found in the officer’s illegal search.

Because that search was patently illegal, the trial court granted a motion to dismiss all charges against Busby. The State Supreme Court admitted that this was the case – but insisted that Busby’s resistance to the illegal invasion of her home retroactively legalized the unconstitutional search.

“It appears to be a nearly universal rule in American jurisdictions that when a suspect responds to an unconstitutional search or seizure by a physical attack on the officer, evidence of this new crime is admissible notwithstanding the prior illegality,” decreed the court, extracting that “rule” from precisely the same orifice from which the Richardson ruling originated. “The rationale … [is that] a subsequent attack on the officer is a new crime unrelated to any prior illegality…. Accordingly, we hold that evidence of Lusby’s alleged batter on an officer or other forceful resistance is not suppressible … [and] evidence of paraphernalia found in the search incident to Lusby’s arrest [is] admissible.”


On this construction, a police officer can nullify the Fourth Amendment anytime he pleases, simply by claiming that the victim committed the supposed crime of resisting. This can take the form of assuming an “aggressive posture,” such as “blading” the body or even putting one foot in front of the other in what can be construed as an “attack stance.” Or, as the recent assault on Austin, Texas resident Antonio Buehler demonstrates, the “assault” can be nothing more than breathing in the face of a police officer.
 
We begin by noting that Lusby's use of physical violence against the officer was a crime and was not justified by the officer's unlawful entry into her home.   It is well established that an individual may not use force to resist a peaceable arrest by one she knows or has good reason to believe is a police officer, even if the arrest is illegal under the circumstances.  State v. Richardson, 95 Idaho 446, 451, 511 P.2d 263, 268 (1973);  State v. Wren, 115 Idaho 618, 627, 768 P.2d 1351, 1360 (Ct.App.1989);  State v. Wilkerson, 114 Idaho 174, 177-78, 755 P.2d 471, 474-75 (Ct.App.1988).   Although a person may resist the use of unreasonable force, she has “no underlying right to resist the officers' attempt to make a peaceable arrest.”  Wren, 115 Idaho at 627, 768 P.2d at 1360.  “f a person has reasonable ground to believe he is being arrested by a peace officer, it is his duty to refrain from using force or any weapon in resisting arrest regardless of whether or not there is a legal basis for the arrest.”   Richardson, 95 Idaho at 451, 511 P.2d at 268.   Instead, an individual subjected to illegal arrest should later pursue rights and remedies afforded by the civil or criminal law.  
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That actually happened here in Ohio. A woman who had been assaulted called the police. The police arrested here and two male officers cuffed her and held her down while she was stripped and had a cavity search performed. Keep in mind, this woman had been a victim of an assualt and had called the police for help. Because she resisted the search she was charged with resisting. She filled suit and the charges were dropped and I believe there was a settlement though I don't know what happened to the officers involved who were in clear violation of procedure. Fortunately for the victim they recorded their raping of her. The attached video is deeply disturbing.

Click to expand...

Holy shit, that is just disgusting. How can anybody justify that obscene behaviour?
 
Yurt said:
We begin by noting that Lusby's use of physical violence against the officer was a crime and was not justified by the officer's unlawful entry into her home.   It is well established that an individual may not use force to resist a peaceable arrest by one she knows or has good reason to believe is a police officer, even if the arrest is illegal under the circumstances.  State v. Richardson, 95 Idaho 446, 451, 511 P.2d 263, 268 (1973);  State v. Wren, 115 Idaho 618, 627, 768 P.2d 1351, 1360 (Ct.App.1989);  State v. Wilkerson, 114 Idaho 174, 177-78, 755 P.2d 471, 474-75 (Ct.App.1988).   Although a person may resist the use of unreasonable force, she has “no underlying right to resist the officers' attempt to make a peaceable arrest.”  Wren, 115 Idaho at 627, 768 P.2d at 1360.  “f a person has reasonable ground to believe he is being arrested by a peace officer, it is his duty to refrain from using force or any weapon in resisting arrest regardless of whether or not there is a legal basis for the arrest.”   Richardson, 95 Idaho at 451, 511 P.2d at 268.   Instead, an individual subjected to illegal arrest should later pursue rights and remedies afforded by the civil or criminal law.  
Click to expand...


and this means what? that it's ok for a court to remove a common law right because they don't like it anymore?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and this means what? that it's ok for a court to remove a common law right because they don't like it anymore?
Click to expand...

1. a court ruling is common law and thus can arguably be changed by the court when they don't strictly adhere to stare decisis.

2. the court cited other cases to support its ruling about her resisting arrest. i didn't read all the cited cases, but i'm going to give the court the benefit of the doubt that it is well established law.
 
Yurt said:
1. a court ruling is common law and thus can arguably be changed by the court when they don't strictly adhere to stare decisis.
Click to expand...
now where in the us or state constitutions does it give the courts the power to determine what the common law rights are?

Yurt said:
2. the court cited other cases to support its ruling about her resisting arrest. i didn't read all the cited cases, but i'm going to give the court the benefit of the doubt that it is well established law.
Click to expand...
so lower courts have the power and authority to overturn the USSC decision of Bad Elk? http://supreme.justia.com/us/177/529/case.html
 
SmarterThanYou;935972]now where in the us or state constitutions does it give the courts the power to determine what the common law rights are?
Click to expand...

what? common law is court rulings. and yes, the constitution does give that power. are you saying the constitution does not give courts the power to rule on law?

so lower courts have the power and authority to overturn the USSC decision of Bad Elk? http://supreme.justia.com/us/177/529/case.html
Click to expand...

i never said lower courts can overturn scotus. lower courts do, however, rule in opposition to higher court rulings and those rulings are appealed.
 
Yurt said:
what? common law is court rulings. and yes, the constitution does give that power. are you saying the constitution does not give courts the power to rule on law?
Click to expand...
common law is founded upon the magna carta, not court rulings. the constitution does not give the judiciary the power to determine what our rights are and what they are not. they were given power to judge laws based on the constitution.

Yurt said:
i never said lower courts can overturn scotus. lower courts do, however, rule in opposition to higher court rulings and those rulings are appealed.
Click to expand...
and then those 'questionable' lower court rulings do not get certioari by the USSC, thus they can stand. isn't that essentially overturning the USSC?
 
marterThanYou;935979]common law is founded upon the magna carta, not court rulings. the constitution does not give the judiciary the power to determine what our rights are and what they are not. they were given power to judge laws based on the constitution.
Click to expand...

i don't like to use wiki, but it was the fastest and easiest source:

Common law (also known as case law or precedent) is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action. A "common law system" is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law,[1] on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

if you have a source that counters that, i would be interested in seeing it as it would mean my meter maid education was incorrect.

and then those 'questionable' lower court rulings do not get certioari by the USSC, thus they can stand. isn't that essentially overturning the USSC?
Click to expand...

when that happens, that is a travesty of justice. however, it is not "overturning" scotus. it simply ignores scotus in that jurisdiction.
 
Yurt said:
i don't like to use wiki, but it was the fastest and easiest source:

Common law (also known as case law or precedent) is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action. A "common law system" is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law,[1] on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

if you have a source that counters that, i would be interested in seeing it as it would mean my meter maid education was incorrect.
Click to expand...
that's why I don't like using wiki also. our common law dates back to the 13th century with the magna carta. court cases and precedent is just continuing common law, which is why i have an issue with courts not liking certain things and coming up with a 'but' to overturn it.

Yurt said:
when that happens, that is a travesty of justice. however, it is not "overturning" scotus. it simply ignores scotus in that jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
so here's OUR dilemma. If we the people are arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned for following USSC precedent, but the lower courts can ignore it, how is there any rule of law?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
that's why I don't like using wiki also. our common law dates back to the 13th century with the magna carta. court cases and precedent is just continuing common law, which is why i have an issue with courts not liking certain things and coming up with a 'but' to overturn it.


so here's OUR dilemma. If we the people are arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned for following USSC precedent, but the lower courts can ignore it, how is there any rule of law?
Click to expand...

so apparently we agree on the common law issue.

as to the second issue:

our choice is clear, if the arrest is peacefully made, we can't resist it. not sure i agree with that, as who defines a "peaceful" arrest. after that, our choices are to utilize the legal system. it is not a perfect system. however, at least there are avenues and as much as the ACLU can get out of hand, they are there to help us citizens.
 
Yurt said:
so apparently we agree on the common law issue.
Click to expand...
to a degree.


Yurt said:
our choice is clear, if the arrest is peacefully made, we can't resist it. not sure i agree with that, as who defines a "peaceful" arrest. after that, our choices are to utilize the legal system. it is not a perfect system. however, at least there are avenues and as much as the ACLU can get out of hand, they are there to help us citizens.
Click to expand...
so we no longer have a right to be free, but a duty to submit, is that it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top