So, a pair of lying police officers can claim that what is legitimate self defense is really "resisting arrest", state so in their printed report and perjure themselves in court (where they will in all likelihood appear in full dress uniform). That way it would be two "law enforcement personnel" versus one "offender". Thank God that things are beginning to change.
Best thing people can do to help themselves in court is not trust any lawyers. Demand jury trial. Question the officers extensively which is something most lawyers will interfere with, which is why mostly people are better to represent themselves. Lawyers on both sides are all criminally employed strident believers in Machiavelli's philosophy of dominance without regard for morality. People must testify on their own behalf. and tell the jury the reality of the situation.
Lawyers tell you the opposite of what's good for innocent defendants. They're guilty a-holes. They're not trying to help innocent people. The whole system is trying to tear everybody down. Lawyers try to get rich off of tearing people down. Almost all Lawyers tell people to not testify in their own defense. Lawyers are screwballs. Nothing's changing. This is a revolution. The word means to go around again. Just another cycle of reaction to the dominants attempts to murder everybody.
Up until the last few years, a case between an detainee and a police officer usually went against the detainee. That is because of the proliferation of personal and portable video and voice recorders. Up until lately, the matter was a case of "he said, she said", and the legal process unfortunately shows great deference to anybody wearing a uniform. So, a pair of lying police officers can claim that what is legitimate self defense is really "resisting arrest", report it and perjure themselves.
@ne014x Interesting point. Do you know has the supreme court decided a false arrest case? It wouldn't surprise me if those bunch of corrupt bureaucrats have never heard such a case, considering they preside over a "justice" system that imprisons nearly a million Americans yearly for victimless crimes. I'm pretty sure they couldn't care less what the law is. Jury trial is US law. Jury nullification is US law. Right to self defense is ancient. Government corruption is similarly ancient.
@ne014x Interesting point. Do you know has the supreme court decided a false arrest case? It wouldn't surprise me if those bunch of corrupt bureaucrats have never heard such a case, considering they preside over a "justice" system that imprisons nearly a million Americans yearly for victimless crimes. I'm pretty sure they couldn't care less what the law is. Jury trial is US law. Jury nullification is US law. Right to self defense is ancient. Government corruption is similarly ancient.
@danielvincentkelley Most of that is covered under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) - At least the pre-arrest parts of it. The Terry case was the most important Supreme court hearing in regards to the right of a person when confronted by the police. Most of what happens when someone is wrongfully convicted is civil action. I think most people who are wrongly arrested even when the case is dropped are too scared to take it further, and besides one a case is dropped what is there to appeal to.
@TheNewMusicNetwork How many cases do you guess went the other way? Where people lawfully defended themselves against criminal cops and wound up dead or in jail for a long time? I'm going to guess 20,000.
@NewMusic As I understand the law, possessing a plant is legal, there's never been any wide support expressed by The People regarding cannabis prohibition. Yet if the cops want to kidnap you for such possession, they're supported by the judges and the jailers. So that's 700,000+ people per year, that if they fought back to defend their rights to pursue happiness and be secure in their possessions, they'd be kidnapped anyhow and jailed longer than if they endure the assault without resistance.
@danielvincentkelley that's not what the courts meant(from what i remember reading) when talking about self defense or the right to defend yourself to the death.
I'll dig up those articles if you would like.
Yes being thrown in a cage for having a plant or two seems a little harsh, as long as your not smoking that stuff in front of any kids or or where your neighbors can smell it because no one wants to smell that shit. no offense.
@TheNewMusicNetwork You've apparently never smoked weed. Cannabis is universally pleasant on the human senses. Cannabis is actually IDEAL human nutrition. Cannabis contains the ideal ratio of omega 3 to omega 6 oils, it also contains the exact protein proportion people need to build disease fighting immunoglobins. You've well apparently been brainwashed. Kids should regularly eat cannabis brownies. Cannabis is an expectorant meaning it's smoke CLEARS the lungs. Your brain has THC receptors.
@TheNewMusicNetwork The courts you're talking about are part of the eSTABlishment. Imagine the government made wearing shoes illegal. And you decided to wear shoes. Imagine being arrested for what you know is no injury to anyone. Why should your life be suffered by fascist tyrants and their tools, wholly without social benefit and in violation of real law, meaning what The People have agreed? Should you have the right to defend yourself if the criminal government kidnaps you for gardening?
You can actually use self defense against a cop if your life is in danger. that means any way necessary but only in self defense. there is case law about it.
@TheNewMusicNetwork I think maybe 1 person got away with it in all of history. I'm fairly certain a time approaches when we'll have to defend ourselves against cops and the whole corporate criminal government. The state cop dispatcher here told me I could expect every level of government was corrupt from the local cops to the federal government. I was surprised at his candor, though was previously aware of said reality.
@TheNewMusic That's what it comes down to, is, if you righteously defend yourself against a criminal cop, then you're going to be behind bars, trapped, dealing with criminal lawyers, judged by a criminal conspirator judge... I've been denied jury trial X3. The judges can make up whatever excuse they want to apply and impose on your further imprisonment. If I thought I was at risk of being murdered by a criminal cop, I would certainly defend myself. Nobody is going to murder me without a fight.
@danielvincentkelley why would you not get a jury trial in a high profile case? if such a thing were to happen, i would think you have friends, relatives, etc to talk to the news stations. in this day and age, my guess would be 70% do not like police at all. 60 can't stand them and don't feel sorry for them. 10% apologize for them.
@TheNewMusic But if again I find myself being falsely imprisoned, just so long as it's not already FEMA camp season, I'd comply. I'd suffer the injustice of being denied a jury trial again. I'd do what I could to reduce the impact of the injustice on my life, meaning I'd under duress sign whatever bogus plea that were enforcing I sign under continued threat of false imprisonment. I'd expect when I got out no lawyer would touch my case, so I'd endure the injustice perpetually awaiting revolution.
yes u r correct bent coppers think they r above the law how wrong they r defend urself at all times against these criminals take them 2 the ground and bring them into our world punish them in a way they dont like and watch them sqiurm DIRTY BASTARDS OUR DAY WILL COME
Although the wording shown above is correct, the vast majority of the population have no idea what constitutes an illegal arrest, or worse still THINK they do. It is incredibly easy to justify an arrest, so it has to be a very ridiculous situation to justify defending against it. Just be careful, as it is up to a Judge to decide if the arrest was lawful or not.
@edjthompson Actually, it's upto a jury until the criminals in charge get more effective about shutting down the legal process. I agree that most people to enact their right to be free from police harassment are just more brutally harassed. That doesn't make it legal, it just makes hordes of 'judges' criminal. Judges are mostly representatives of the financial dominance establishment, particularly the judicial branch of such e-stab-lishment.
@danielvincentkelley It's only up to a jury if a Judge decides that there is a case to be heard. There's no way I'm reading all of those replies you've put but I get the general idea. You have validated my point quite well, conspiracy theorists, anarchists, freedom of speech fighters, or whatever category you fit into; are dangerous. They believe they are right and cause problems for the police which costs an extraordinary amount of taxpayers money.
@edjthompson What are you saying? A judge might decide a case where someone accused of securing their right to be free from false imprisonment is not worth hearing? That's pretty far fetched. Typically the justice system is all over it, trying to force their point. That people can step outside the box, by merely requesting a trial by their peers is brilliant and reality. You know not what "category" of person I am and have decided I'm dangerous?
@danielvincentkelley In a word, yes. A judge will be able to determine very quickly if an arrest was justified or not. If it wasn't then there will be a trial. If it was justified then there will be no trial as there is no case to hear. You have watched far too much television and seem to be confusing 'lawful killing' with 'murder'. I am reading and taking in what you say, however I can't help the fact that your opinion is complete drivel.
@edjthompson #1. When I was a child I was disallowed from watching TV during the day. The first time the TV came on was to watch the news at dinner time. 90% of my adult life I have not owned a TV, nor had a subscription to TV service. When I do watch TV, strictly I watch real life, documentaries, martial art championships, xgames and the like. So, you're a reality ignoring damn blaspheming wind bag who doesn't know when to quit. Does what's in this video seem like I watch much TV?
The person who was falsely imprisoned and chose to defend themselves from that, is OBVIOUSLY going to stand trial. Obviously the judge isn't going to dismiss the case. THAT is his opportunity to reject the prosecution, by requesting a jury trial and by weight of evidence prove his false imprisonment. Once false imprisonment is proven, the innocent released, then he can convene a CITIZENS GRAND JURY, to prosecute the criminal cops who falsely imprisoned him, should the "judge" choose ignorance.
People get arrested and then sent to prison without a trial? Are you living in the 4th Reich already or what? The government doesn't get away with sending people to jail without trial very often. How is the judge going to send the person to jail, who defended themselves from criminal cops, without a trial? I know you're saying that judges won't hold cops accountable by trial. But that doesn't prevent someone from using their jury trial to advance evidence of their having been falsely imprisoned.
@edjthompson Nah, I'm not confusing 'lawful killing' with murder. Murder is murder. There was no wide consent to arm cops with guns. What's democratically lawful about traffic enforcement being ever prepared to splatter your brains on the asphalt? Cops kill more cops than anyone else, by suicide. Add that to the 1 out of 4 cops who gets killed with their own gun by assailants and it makes nearly no sense that "peace keepers" be toting brain splattering weaponry.
If a cop goes out to take down a bear, they bring a dart gun with sleepy juice. If they go out to deal with the general public they're prepped to blast them into oblivion! That OBVIOUSLY makes no sense, except to maintain the status quo, that the cops be able and willing murderers for the criminal government who are controlled by banksters. Cops are prosecuted for murder at a rate that parallels the general population. They get away with bunches of their unjustified homicide too. Check the news
Add to cops murdering nearly 4 times more people than the general population, that cops are found guilty of sexual assault X2 compared to the general population and it should become abundantly clear how egregious is the present state of criminal policing, meaning the cops are the criminals. This doesn't even take into account the present police state's total disregard for the bill of rights, nor human rights, nor how the police bureaucracy is widely involved in trafficking narcotics.
@danielvincentkelley ... aren't the LEO's supposed to fight the war on drugs... hmm...
what does the word 'WAR' change in our Constituion?
war on poverty, war on drugs, & now the war on terror...
but since the end of WW2, theres not been a single declaration of war issued by the Congress, only resolutions authorizing the POTUS powers Not granted him by the Const...
@Wrongway1965 If by aren't you meant they are NOT supposed to be enforcing a ban on agricultural products, then, yes, you are 100% correct, they're sworn to uphold certain constitutions, none of which make any mention of banning certain plant products. Definitely the fed gov is corrupt. I was complaining to the state cops about how the local cops were treating me and the state cops told me that I could well expect that every level of "law enforcement" is corrupt from local to federal.
@edjthompson You're a total moron. Because someone is arrested, does NOT make them a criminal. Millions of dismissed cases worldwide proves that. Hell, some people spend 30+ years in jail before they're exonerated. Beyond that, criminals roam freely in many cases, murderers even never prosectuted, much less arrested. Oh yah, handful or two dozen that took me just 20 minutes to find... nothing to indicate systemic abuse in that sampling of criminal cops. Fahk Off.
I might be dangerous to you. You seem to be a good little fascist. I'm not dangerous to anyone who isn't trying to thieve or murder. So there's your only option to not be endangered by me, is to not thieve and murder. Are you aware cops murder almost 4X more people than noncops in the US. Who is the problem really? Who is more dangerous? And to whom are these dangerous people dangerous? Everything's relative and you're on the weak tax dependent fractious minority side of the debate.
You want to have your say but you can't read what I have to say? You're like a child with his hands over his ears screaming "Give me Give me Give me Give me..." while your patient mom tries to explain to you why you are not allowed to play with butcher knives. Go ahead and play with that cold steel of fascist ideology. You're sure to be endangered by your ear plugging ways.
Jdg's are oft a tool for asserting control by a politcaly domnant clique.A jury is merely 12 people random selected to listen to the facts of a case and weigh justice.Jury trial system has been tainted by Judges "instrctions", which can be defeatd by a person arguing a case explaining to the jury their role being: evaluate not mere guilt or innocence considering the politically enacted law, but to evaluate the supposed law as some polit. dom. clique has written it.
I'd like to see the study results that support your claim that the vast majority of people are incapable of recognizing an illegal arrest. Sounds like hog wash to me. It is incredibly easy to "justify" an arrest where the only person you have to convince is 1 guy who is in the pocket of the establishment making the arrests, sure. But where Jury trial is still upheld, those criminal cops stand to suffer job loss, liable suit then disgraced living amongst their formerly respectful communities.
I'll grant this, usually justice doesn't happen, not within this lifetime. 99% of living is done while the living suffer egregious injustice. I'll grant that 99% of the police brewed injustice and 99% of the political conniving injustice goes without justice in this lifetime. I agree that it's not often that people even seek jury trial, much less have a legal representative who argues a strong case for them. Only the rich seem to be able to access that form of "justice", then injustice really.
Injustice there against the plaintiff who was injured by the jury trial corrupting money power person who be on trial in such a case. I agree that cops rarely suffer disgrace for their injuries against the community at large. Mostly people never challenge the boldly corrupt police bureaucracy, and the police only heap murderous injustice on those who've gotten smart to their human splattering ways. But that doesn't mean people can not access justice, they could, but most are too malnourished.
That's not to say they don't know right from wrong. Just that they don't have the drive, stamina, wit and determination to petition their whole community against the criminal bureaucracy. Eventually the bureaucracy becomes too corrupt for even it's least abused to tolerate, as it must, due it's hugely murderous agenda, wrought upon all who are not critical to it's continued dominance, then upon those who had been necessary to it's dominance in the past, then revolution brews to board sweep.
(cont.)... and if they continue after that, stop them by whatever means seem necessary for the situation. People in America and some other nations as well have been too leniant and too tolerant for too long. People need to be reminded that protecting yourself, the people you love, and even anyone around you from being abused, even by law enforcement, is not a crime. In fact it's usually the morally correct thing to do. Please, stand up and fight for your rights and safety as a human being.
This is the perfect set of rulings to carry with you to an airport with the current state of affairs in America. Notice in the ruling of Adams v. State, 121 Ga., that it includes molestation. Well, in my eyes, the advanced pat downs in airports can be technically declared molestations, with this you could technically stop them from harassing you and then pass it to the next person in line. Show it to them first and if they continue forcefully push their hand away...(cont.)
@TheBbergner86 Nah, they'll chase you just as hard as if you hadn't said anything. You should read the info on the video. I spelled out how I've handled police harassment since I became a dissident of the fed gov and the establishment in general. If you kill a cop, you're going to have to stand trial about for sure. So, be in the right, meaning the cop was provably murderously employed against you and you were exhibiting strictly self defense.
This is Beautiful!!! If only people would watch and the courts would follow these things. The double standard between citizens... I mean "Civillians" as we are now called and the Police officers i mean... "Tyrant enforcers" is ridiculous. Thanks for the information my friend. May the Constitution of these United States be with you at all time.
So, a pair of lying police officers can claim that what is legitimate self defense is really "resisting arrest", state so in their printed report and perjure themselves in court (where they will in all likelihood appear in full dress uniform). That way it would be two "law enforcement personnel" versus one "offender". Thank God that things are beginning to change.
jlsperling1 4 months ago
@jlsperling1
Best thing people can do to help themselves in court is not trust any lawyers. Demand jury trial. Question the officers extensively which is something most lawyers will interfere with, which is why mostly people are better to represent themselves. Lawyers on both sides are all criminally employed strident believers in Machiavelli's philosophy of dominance without regard for morality. People must testify on their own behalf. and tell the jury the reality of the situation.
danielvincentkelley 4 months ago
@danielvincentkelley
A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.
CaneFu 2 months ago
@jlsperl
Lawyers tell you the opposite of what's good for innocent defendants. They're guilty a-holes. They're not trying to help innocent people. The whole system is trying to tear everybody down. Lawyers try to get rich off of tearing people down. Almost all Lawyers tell people to not testify in their own defense. Lawyers are screwballs. Nothing's changing. This is a revolution. The word means to go around again. Just another cycle of reaction to the dominants attempts to murder everybody.
danielvincentkelley 4 months ago
Up until the last few years, a case between an detainee and a police officer usually went against the detainee. That is because of the proliferation of personal and portable video and voice recorders. Up until lately, the matter was a case of "he said, she said", and the legal process unfortunately shows great deference to anybody wearing a uniform. So, a pair of lying police officers can claim that what is legitimate self defense is really "resisting arrest", report it and perjure themselves.
jlsperling1 4 months ago
These are not suppreme court cases they only apply in the states that they were in, no US wide
ne014x 5 months ago
@ne014x Interesting point. Do you know has the supreme court decided a false arrest case? It wouldn't surprise me if those bunch of corrupt bureaucrats have never heard such a case, considering they preside over a "justice" system that imprisons nearly a million Americans yearly for victimless crimes. I'm pretty sure they couldn't care less what the law is. Jury trial is US law. Jury nullification is US law. Right to self defense is ancient. Government corruption is similarly ancient.
danielvincentkelley 5 months ago
@ne014x Interesting point. Do you know has the supreme court decided a false arrest case? It wouldn't surprise me if those bunch of corrupt bureaucrats have never heard such a case, considering they preside over a "justice" system that imprisons nearly a million Americans yearly for victimless crimes. I'm pretty sure they couldn't care less what the law is. Jury trial is US law. Jury nullification is US law. Right to self defense is ancient. Government corruption is similarly ancient.
danielvincentkelley 5 months ago
@danielvincentkelley Most of that is covered under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) - At least the pre-arrest parts of it. The Terry case was the most important Supreme court hearing in regards to the right of a person when confronted by the police. Most of what happens when someone is wrongfully convicted is civil action. I think most people who are wrongly arrested even when the case is dropped are too scared to take it further, and besides one a case is dropped what is there to appeal to.
ne014x 4 months ago
OMFG, i search the house for headphones before pushing play to find this. At least it wasn't that techno song
hifatpeople 6 months ago
there were about 20 cases actually.
TheNewMusicNetwork 7 months ago
@TheNewMusicNetwork How many cases do you guess went the other way? Where people lawfully defended themselves against criminal cops and wound up dead or in jail for a long time? I'm going to guess 20,000.
danielvincentkelley 7 months ago
@NewMusic As I understand the law, possessing a plant is legal, there's never been any wide support expressed by The People regarding cannabis prohibition. Yet if the cops want to kidnap you for such possession, they're supported by the judges and the jailers. So that's 700,000+ people per year, that if they fought back to defend their rights to pursue happiness and be secure in their possessions, they'd be kidnapped anyhow and jailed longer than if they endure the assault without resistance.
danielvincentkelley 7 months ago
@danielvincentkelley that's not what the courts meant(from what i remember reading) when talking about self defense or the right to defend yourself to the death.
I'll dig up those articles if you would like.
Yes being thrown in a cage for having a plant or two seems a little harsh, as long as your not smoking that stuff in front of any kids or or where your neighbors can smell it because no one wants to smell that shit. no offense.
TheNewMusicNetwork 7 months ago
@TheNewMusicNetwork You've apparently never smoked weed. Cannabis is universally pleasant on the human senses. Cannabis is actually IDEAL human nutrition. Cannabis contains the ideal ratio of omega 3 to omega 6 oils, it also contains the exact protein proportion people need to build disease fighting immunoglobins. You've well apparently been brainwashed. Kids should regularly eat cannabis brownies. Cannabis is an expectorant meaning it's smoke CLEARS the lungs. Your brain has THC receptors.
danielvincentkelley 7 months ago
@TheNewMusicNetwork The courts you're talking about are part of the eSTABlishment. Imagine the government made wearing shoes illegal. And you decided to wear shoes. Imagine being arrested for what you know is no injury to anyone. Why should your life be suffered by fascist tyrants and their tools, wholly without social benefit and in violation of real law, meaning what The People have agreed? Should you have the right to defend yourself if the criminal government kidnaps you for gardening?
danielvincentkelley 7 months ago
You can actually use self defense against a cop if your life is in danger. that means any way necessary but only in self defense. there is case law about it.
TheNewMusicNetwork 7 months ago
@TheNewMusicNetwork I think maybe 1 person got away with it in all of history. I'm fairly certain a time approaches when we'll have to defend ourselves against cops and the whole corporate criminal government. The state cop dispatcher here told me I could expect every level of government was corrupt from the local cops to the federal government. I was surprised at his candor, though was previously aware of said reality.
danielvincentkelley 7 months ago
@TheNewMusic That's what it comes down to, is, if you righteously defend yourself against a criminal cop, then you're going to be behind bars, trapped, dealing with criminal lawyers, judged by a criminal conspirator judge... I've been denied jury trial X3. The judges can make up whatever excuse they want to apply and impose on your further imprisonment. If I thought I was at risk of being murdered by a criminal cop, I would certainly defend myself. Nobody is going to murder me without a fight.
danielvincentkelley 7 months ago
@danielvincentkelley why would you not get a jury trial in a high profile case? if such a thing were to happen, i would think you have friends, relatives, etc to talk to the news stations. in this day and age, my guess would be 70% do not like police at all. 60 can't stand them and don't feel sorry for them. 10% apologize for them.
TheNewMusicNetwork 7 months ago
@TheNewMusic But if again I find myself being falsely imprisoned, just so long as it's not already FEMA camp season, I'd comply. I'd suffer the injustice of being denied a jury trial again. I'd do what I could to reduce the impact of the injustice on my life, meaning I'd under duress sign whatever bogus plea that were enforcing I sign under continued threat of false imprisonment. I'd expect when I got out no lawyer would touch my case, so I'd endure the injustice perpetually awaiting revolution.
danielvincentkelley 7 months ago
@danielvincentkelley you'll be a good slave.
TheNewMusicNetwork 7 months ago
yes u r correct bent coppers think they r above the law how wrong they r defend urself at all times against these criminals take them 2 the ground and bring them into our world punish them in a way they dont like and watch them sqiurm DIRTY BASTARDS OUR DAY WILL COME
462904 8 months ago
Although the wording shown above is correct, the vast majority of the population have no idea what constitutes an illegal arrest, or worse still THINK they do. It is incredibly easy to justify an arrest, so it has to be a very ridiculous situation to justify defending against it. Just be careful, as it is up to a Judge to decide if the arrest was lawful or not.
edjthompson 1 year ago
@edjthompson Actually, it's upto a jury until the criminals in charge get more effective about shutting down the legal process. I agree that most people to enact their right to be free from police harassment are just more brutally harassed. That doesn't make it legal, it just makes hordes of 'judges' criminal. Judges are mostly representatives of the financial dominance establishment, particularly the judicial branch of such e-stab-lishment.
danielvincentkelley 1 year ago
@danielvincentkelley It's only up to a jury if a Judge decides that there is a case to be heard. There's no way I'm reading all of those replies you've put but I get the general idea. You have validated my point quite well, conspiracy theorists, anarchists, freedom of speech fighters, or whatever category you fit into; are dangerous. They believe they are right and cause problems for the police which costs an extraordinary amount of taxpayers money.
edjthompson 1 year ago
@edjthompson What are you saying? A judge might decide a case where someone accused of securing their right to be free from false imprisonment is not worth hearing? That's pretty far fetched. Typically the justice system is all over it, trying to force their point. That people can step outside the box, by merely requesting a trial by their peers is brilliant and reality. You know not what "category" of person I am and have decided I'm dangerous?
danielvincentkelley 1 year ago
@danielvincentkelley In a word, yes. A judge will be able to determine very quickly if an arrest was justified or not. If it wasn't then there will be a trial. If it was justified then there will be no trial as there is no case to hear. You have watched far too much television and seem to be confusing 'lawful killing' with 'murder'. I am reading and taking in what you say, however I can't help the fact that your opinion is complete drivel.
edjthompson 1 year ago
@edjthompson #1. When I was a child I was disallowed from watching TV during the day. The first time the TV came on was to watch the news at dinner time. 90% of my adult life I have not owned a TV, nor had a subscription to TV service. When I do watch TV, strictly I watch real life, documentaries, martial art championships, xgames and the like. So, you're a reality ignoring damn blaspheming wind bag who doesn't know when to quit. Does what's in this video seem like I watch much TV?
danielvincentkelley 1 year ago
The person who was falsely imprisoned and chose to defend themselves from that, is OBVIOUSLY going to stand trial. Obviously the judge isn't going to dismiss the case. THAT is his opportunity to reject the prosecution, by requesting a jury trial and by weight of evidence prove his false imprisonment. Once false imprisonment is proven, the innocent released, then he can convene a CITIZENS GRAND JURY, to prosecute the criminal cops who falsely imprisoned him, should the "judge" choose ignorance.
danielvincentkelley 1 year ago
People get arrested and then sent to prison without a trial? Are you living in the 4th Reich already or what? The government doesn't get away with sending people to jail without trial very often. How is the judge going to send the person to jail, who defended themselves from criminal cops, without a trial? I know you're saying that judges won't hold cops accountable by trial. But that doesn't prevent someone from using their jury trial to advance evidence of their having been falsely imprisoned.
danielvincentkelley 1 year ago
@edjthompson Nah, I'm not confusing 'lawful killing' with murder. Murder is murder. There was no wide consent to arm cops with guns. What's democratically lawful about traffic enforcement being ever prepared to splatter your brains on the asphalt? Cops kill more cops than anyone else, by suicide. Add that to the 1 out of 4 cops who gets killed with their own gun by assailants and it makes nearly no sense that "peace keepers" be toting brain splattering weaponry.
danielvincentkelley 1 year ago
If a cop goes out to take down a bear, they bring a dart gun with sleepy juice. If they go out to deal with the general public they're prepped to blast them into oblivion! That OBVIOUSLY makes no sense, except to maintain the status quo, that the cops be able and willing murderers for the criminal government who are controlled by banksters. Cops are prosecuted for murder at a rate that parallels the general population. They get away with bunches of their unjustified homicide too. Check the news
danielvincentkelley 1 year ago
Add to cops murdering nearly 4 times more people than the general population, that cops are found guilty of sexual assault X2 compared to the general population and it should become abundantly clear how egregious is the present state of criminal policing, meaning the cops are the criminals. This doesn't even take into account the present police state's total disregard for the bill of rights, nor human rights, nor how the police bureaucracy is widely involved in trafficking narcotics.
danielvincentkelley 1 year ago
@edjthompson
Undercover Cop Arrested for Selling Drugs to an Undercover Cop
Vancouver Police Officer Selling Drugs On Duty and Breaking into Houses
Swampscott cop charged with selling drugs resigns
Three Philadelphia Police Officers Arrested After Stealing Drugs And Selling Them
South Carolina Sheriff Accused of Dealing Drugs From Police SUV
LA cop charged with selling meth in San Diego County
Cops & Customs Agents Caught Drug Smuggling
Kennett cop arrested for selling drugs in Penn
danielvincentkelley 1 year ago
Clarksville Indiana Police Officer Frankie Mikel Arrested Selling Drugs At Skating Rink
Correctional officer charged with selling drugs to Dover cop
A History of Drug Dealing Cops! - Part I (11 Drug Dealing Cop stories on that one page!!)
Cops accused of selling drugs denied bail
Crooked Cops Indicted For Selling Drugs And Guns
LAPD's Perez Was Dealing Drugs in '92, Ex-Lover Says
Law Enforcement: This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
Ex-Mo. Cop Charged with Stealing Drugs from Evidence
danielvincentkelley 1 year ago
@danielvincentkelley ... aren't the LEO's supposed to fight the war on drugs... hmm...
what does the word 'WAR' change in our Constituion?
war on poverty, war on drugs, & now the war on terror...
but since the end of WW2, theres not been a single declaration of war issued by the Congress, only resolutions authorizing the POTUS powers Not granted him by the Const...
the War of the Fed Govt is upon its Citizens...
Wrongway1965 10 months ago
@Wrongway1965 If by aren't you meant they are NOT supposed to be enforcing a ban on agricultural products, then, yes, you are 100% correct, they're sworn to uphold certain constitutions, none of which make any mention of banning certain plant products. Definitely the fed gov is corrupt. I was complaining to the state cops about how the local cops were treating me and the state cops told me that I could well expect that every level of "law enforcement" is corrupt from local to federal.
danielvincentkelley 9 months ago
@edjthompson Who are the criminals Ed?
danielvincentkelley 1 year ago
@danielvincentkelley The people being arrested. You citing a handful of examples of dodgy officers changes nothing.
edjthompson 1 year ago
@edjthompson You're a total moron. Because someone is arrested, does NOT make them a criminal. Millions of dismissed cases worldwide proves that. Hell, some people spend 30+ years in jail before they're exonerated. Beyond that, criminals roam freely in many cases, murderers even never prosectuted, much less arrested. Oh yah, handful or two dozen that took me just 20 minutes to find... nothing to indicate systemic abuse in that sampling of criminal cops. Fahk Off.
danielvincentkelley 1 year ago
@danielvincentkelley Thats because those criminals ARE the police. They just never tell anyone.
realhiphop087 10 months ago
I might be dangerous to you. You seem to be a good little fascist. I'm not dangerous to anyone who isn't trying to thieve or murder. So there's your only option to not be endangered by me, is to not thieve and murder. Are you aware cops murder almost 4X more people than noncops in the US. Who is the problem really? Who is more dangerous? And to whom are these dangerous people dangerous? Everything's relative and you're on the weak tax dependent fractious minority side of the debate.
danielvincentkelley 1 year ago
You want to have your say but you can't read what I have to say? You're like a child with his hands over his ears screaming "Give me Give me Give me Give me..." while your patient mom tries to explain to you why you are not allowed to play with butcher knives. Go ahead and play with that cold steel of fascist ideology. You're sure to be endangered by your ear plugging ways.
danielvincentkelley 1 year ago
Jdg's are oft a tool for asserting control by a politcaly domnant clique.A jury is merely 12 people random selected to listen to the facts of a case and weigh justice.Jury trial system has been tainted by Judges "instrctions", which can be defeatd by a person arguing a case explaining to the jury their role being: evaluate not mere guilt or innocence considering the politically enacted law, but to evaluate the supposed law as some polit. dom. clique has written it.
danielvincentkelley 1 year ago
I'd like to see the study results that support your claim that the vast majority of people are incapable of recognizing an illegal arrest. Sounds like hog wash to me. It is incredibly easy to "justify" an arrest where the only person you have to convince is 1 guy who is in the pocket of the establishment making the arrests, sure. But where Jury trial is still upheld, those criminal cops stand to suffer job loss, liable suit then disgraced living amongst their formerly respectful communities.
danielvincentkelley 1 year ago
I'll grant this, usually justice doesn't happen, not within this lifetime. 99% of living is done while the living suffer egregious injustice. I'll grant that 99% of the police brewed injustice and 99% of the political conniving injustice goes without justice in this lifetime. I agree that it's not often that people even seek jury trial, much less have a legal representative who argues a strong case for them. Only the rich seem to be able to access that form of "justice", then injustice really.
danielvincentkelley 1 year ago
Injustice there against the plaintiff who was injured by the jury trial corrupting money power person who be on trial in such a case. I agree that cops rarely suffer disgrace for their injuries against the community at large. Mostly people never challenge the boldly corrupt police bureaucracy, and the police only heap murderous injustice on those who've gotten smart to their human splattering ways. But that doesn't mean people can not access justice, they could, but most are too malnourished.
danielvincentkelley 1 year ago
That's not to say they don't know right from wrong. Just that they don't have the drive, stamina, wit and determination to petition their whole community against the criminal bureaucracy. Eventually the bureaucracy becomes too corrupt for even it's least abused to tolerate, as it must, due it's hugely murderous agenda, wrought upon all who are not critical to it's continued dominance, then upon those who had been necessary to it's dominance in the past, then revolution brews to board sweep.
danielvincentkelley 1 year ago
(cont.)... and if they continue after that, stop them by whatever means seem necessary for the situation. People in America and some other nations as well have been too leniant and too tolerant for too long. People need to be reminded that protecting yourself, the people you love, and even anyone around you from being abused, even by law enforcement, is not a crime. In fact it's usually the morally correct thing to do. Please, stand up and fight for your rights and safety as a human being.
FlamesOfZen 1 year ago
This is the perfect set of rulings to carry with you to an airport with the current state of affairs in America. Notice in the ruling of Adams v. State, 121 Ga., that it includes molestation. Well, in my eyes, the advanced pat downs in airports can be technically declared molestations, with this you could technically stop them from harassing you and then pass it to the next person in line. Show it to them first and if they continue forcefully push their hand away...(cont.)
FlamesOfZen 1 year ago
Will they stop chasing me if i yell this stuff out after killing a cop?
TheBbergner86 1 year ago
@TheBbergner86 Nah, they'll chase you just as hard as if you hadn't said anything. You should read the info on the video. I spelled out how I've handled police harassment since I became a dissident of the fed gov and the establishment in general. If you kill a cop, you're going to have to stand trial about for sure. So, be in the right, meaning the cop was provably murderously employed against you and you were exhibiting strictly self defense.
danielvincentkelley 1 year ago
The constitution is used as toilet paper every day by the assholes in charge, and no one seems to care. It makes me sick.
magiccat12 1 year ago
EXACTLY. Stay on the good side and you will prevail!
THRUTHESMOKENMIRRORS 1 year ago
This is Beautiful!!! If only people would watch and the courts would follow these things. The double standard between citizens... I mean "Civillians" as we are now called and the Police officers i mean... "Tyrant enforcers" is ridiculous. Thanks for the information my friend. May the Constitution of these United States be with you at all time.
tmaye01 1 year ago