USA: Being funny could send you to prison now

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Did you do the investigation? For all we know there is much more about this case than what is shown...show me the police report when it is done. It may have very well been a joke...and the police showed up and noticed some tear damage on her skin from where the tape was...idk...but under the domestic violence law the officer has to make an arrest with any evidence of domestic violence or the officer can be sued. I would wager that officers are sued more on domestic violence calls than any other call. So it is possible that as we say...."thin as the case may be"...if there is enough evidence for an arrest then one has to be made. This is just probably a case of a cop covering his ass due to how silly the laws are. Change the law then and give cops the option in this case to make an arrest or not. And I am only speculating into the details here...I have no idea what fully happened in this case and neither does anyone else unless you read the police report.

reply to post by cosmicexplorer


I cannot repeat this enough. No one here in this thread, including me, knows the facts of this case, which is why I am reserving judgment of guilt and presuming innocence as any juror should.

Your nonsense about a police officer has to arrest this man or he could be sued is just that, nonsense. If that police officer who arrested him watches this case go to trial and a jury finds the man, based on the facts, not guilty, that police officer, that prosecutor, and if the father of the child challenged the jurisdiction, even the judge can not only be sued, but they can face some very serious criminal charges themselves, for simulation of legal process, acting under color of law, malicious prosecution, impersonating government officials and obstruction of justice!

If that man is innocent, not only are the police, and prosecution guilty of defamation of character, so are many in this thread! Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but know one has the right to defame another!

The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. That is the law! You want to play prosecutor? Don't waste my time demanding I prove he is innocent, that burden of proof is upon you.

Ignorantia juris non excusat! Learn the law and deny ignorance!

Originally posted by biggmoneyme
seriousness is destroying us

Stupidity is destroying us!

Boy, everyone is sure vocal in their condemnation of this man. I don't believe in hitting women or children, unless they hit you first. If my little girl ever decided to nut up and punch daddy you better believe she would be lucky to just get taped up and embarrased on FB. If you want to hit like a man, then you should not be surprised to get hit back like a man. Jus sayin.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Ok well then learn your law cause in some states if their is evidence of "battery" and they are related under certain circumstances we are ordered to make an arrest....even if they drop the case later...if we dont we can be sued...and we will lose...im not saying I agree with it...im just saying the law forces us to make arrests that are pathetic...So don't be pissed at the cop...be pissed at the law makers...the same ones that make ridiculous rules for DUI's as well. Whether an officer agrees with the case or not they still have to sometimes make an arrest...I don't agree with the seatbelt law...but its there! I don't agree with a lot of crimes where there is no victim...but the laws still exist and I don't get to choose which ones I want to enforce or not. It is like any job...you have to do crap you don't enjoy....Once again..this is into speculation that some sort of physical violence occurred whether on purpose or accident in this case.

reply to post by cosmicexplorer

Ok well then learn your law cause in some states if their is evidence of "battery" and they are related under certain circumstances we are ordered to make an arrest....even if they drop the case later...if we dont we can be sued...and we will lose...im not saying I agree with it...im just saying the law forces us to make arrests that are pathetic...So don't be pissed at the cop...be pissed at the law makers...

The Supreme Law of any state is their State Constitution. Every state has a Constitution that greatly restrains government from trampling upon the rights of individuals. So too does the federal government. This is the law! Any subsequent legislation that endeavors to trample over the rights of individuals is not law!

Police officers took an oath of office to uphold the law and to support and defend the Constitution, which means they are not required by law to enforce any bogus legislation that would violate the rights of others. The infamous McDonald's coffee law suit gives clue to how easy it is to be sued, and using that kind of litigation to defend the violation of individual rights is odious and unseemly.

All government officials took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitutions, ordained by the People of which they serve. Bogus legislation is not a get out of jail free card for government officials who ignore their obligation of oath in order to enforce bogus legislation.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by cosmicexplorer

 

Ok well then learn your law cause in some states if their is evidence of "battery" and they are related under certain circumstances we are ordered to make an arrest....even if they drop the case later...if we dont we can be sued...and we will lose...im not saying I agree with it...im just saying the law forces us to make arrests that are pathetic...So don't be pissed at the cop...be pissed at the law makers...

The Supreme Law of any state is their State Constitution. Every state has a Constitution that greatly restrains government from trampling upon the rights of individuals. So too does the federal government. This is the law! Any subsequent legislation that endeavors to trample over the rights of individuals is not law!

Police officers took an oath of office to uphold the law and to support and defend the Constitution, which means they are not required by law to enforce any bogus legislation that would violate the rights of others. The infamous McDonald's coffee law suit gives clue to how easy it is to be sued, and using that kind of litigation to defend the violation of individual rights is odious and unseemly.

All government officials took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitutions, ordained by the People of which they serve. Bogus legislation is not a get out of jail free card for government officials who ignore their obligation of oath in order to enforce bogus legislation.

The Mcdonald's case is a civil case...civil law is in a horrid state and is unrelated to criminal law....You are right I took an oath...in the military and as a cop...and in the state I am in If we have any evidence of domestic violence we have to make an arrest...which im assuming is the case here...but I don't know the details...So the officer would have been upholding the law..If you are saying that the law is unconstitutional well then that is a whole other argument...personally I think officers should be able to use discretion in domestic battery cases instead of being mandated to make an arrest...that way they can sort out what is legit and what is crap...but because we are mandated to make an arrest...you get some lame arrests...

Let me give you another example. Lets say a guy clears a warrant he had but the clerk forgot to take it out of the computer....the guy then drives home and gets pulled over and is arrested...he swears it is taken care of...the officer has to make the arrest because according to the confirmation and computer it says its valid. So the officer makes a bad arrest in "good faith". That is a term that protects us in situations like this because it is possible someone messed up, but we are MANDATED by a judge to make that arrest.

So there are definitely situations that come up that are awful to put someone through...but it is not always the cops fault is all I am saying.

reply to post by cosmicexplorer

The Mcdonald's case is a civil case...civil law is in a horrid state and is unrelated to criminal law....

You're the one who is defending dubious arrests by claiming if cops don't arrest them on the flimsiest of evidence they can get sued. Here's a news flash: That law suit you keep claiming will happen if cops don't violate the rights of a person is a civil suit, just the same as the civil suit brought against that cop for violating a persons right. Learn the Law!

You are right I took an oath...in the military and as a cop...and in the state I am in If we have any evidence of domestic violence we have to make an arrest...which im assuming is the case here

The only evidence presented in this thread is that picture, and a claim that some family member alerted the police. A picture and here say is what you are using to assume and that assumption is hardly an investigation. Stop assuming and investigate!

but I don't know the details

This is what I have been saying all along. No one seems to know the details, but here you are defending cops for arresting this guy, insisting that some legislative act is all that is needed, regardless of the details, regardless of the facts, you insist that if a cop can somehow paint the legislation in a way that justifies the arrest and if they don't apply legislation that may or may not apply to this case they can be sued for not acting arbitrarily and capriciously, pretending not only that cops cannot be sued for capricious and arbitrary application of legislation but that they cannot be prosecuted for the crimes of acting under color of law, simulation of legal process, malicious prosecution, impersonating a police officer, and obstruction.

but I don't know the details...So the officer would have been upholding the law

While you don't know the details of the case, you take a leap of logic and inexplicably assert the officer would have been upholding the law. If this man is able to successfully challenge the arrest before even pleading - which given most peoples profound ignorance of the law he probably didn't, but if he were to - that dismissal for want of subject matter jurisdiction becomes prima facie evidence of the criminal arrest. Learn the Law!

you are saying that the law is unconstitutional well then that is a whole other argument.

I never said any such thing, you're the one insisting that I shouldn't blame the cop but instead blame the legislation of which you insist on conflating with law. I simply spoke to unconstitutionality, but as a person who took an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitutions you served, you clearly have no regard for Constitutional restraints placed upon law enforcement and want people to believe that if a cop can some how make it appear as if legislation justifies their unconstitutionality then it is perfectly okay. It is not okay, and more and more people are waking up to the fact that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and that People do have certain unalienable rights.

personally I think officers should be able to use discretion in domestic battery cases instead of being mandated to make an arrest

Don't kid yourself. Police do have discretionary power, otherwise that oath of office you took would be worthless on its face. Obviously the oath of office YOU took is worthless but it isn't because of the oath itself, it is because you apparently have no intention of honoring it.

but because we are mandated to make an arrest...you get some lame arrests...

The primary mandate any police officer has is to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution of which they serve. I assure you that whatever state Constitution that is, it comes with probable cause restraints and due process of law mandates. Regardless of what any subsequent legislation might say, this does not repeal the Constitution by which the police took and oath of office to uphold, protect and defend. You can try to paint this as if you and other thugs are really just good guys that wish you didn't have to piss all over peoples rights, its just that you've been mandated to piss all over peoples rights, all you want, it is a sloppy paint job and obviously so.

No one yet knows the facts of this case presented by this O.P., the most prudent thing for all of us to do is to wait and see what facts do arise. Your insistence that every act of legislation that comes down the pike is law superior to that Constitution which gave a legislature authority to legislate is another matter, and not okay. Learn the Law!

Once again..the Mcdonalds case is a civil case...the police do not enforce civil law...they have nothing to do with it...I don't know why this is even being brought up. It is comments like this that confirm you have no idea what you are talking about with law and just yell "constitution" whenever you feel like.

Ok lets do this instead...let us change the case then...since you are so big on the constitution...what do you think should happen to someone who pirates a movie or song online? Just curious...Should they be arrested? If so for how long...should they get a warning? Change it to any crime...lets say rape...or theft of gas....

I have a feeling you will be on the side of caution and not demand very much punishment. There is reality on the streets..and there is fantasy land which the rest of society lives in. I believe this case was a prank...but an officer saw some sort of evidence that forced him to make an arrest and the case will be dropped in due time most likely because with domestic violence the judge does the filtering instead of the officer...so everyone is happy...now for real crime...most criminals..the lowest 2 % of #bags out there....will consistently do crime over and over and over..they will never learn. What do we do with them? Do we keep letting them out of prison and jail with warnings and small fines and probation? They have a better life inside of jail than the life they have at home for some...jail means very little to these people...the system is #ed as a whole...and its #ed on both sides...the leading 2% and the bottom 2% that can't get their act together...but In general on this site the only thing you see and hear is...cops bad...everyone else is good....I ve watched video after video of occupy movements were people from the crowds were throwing bottles at the cops...then the cops arrest that person and injure him during the arrest...do you realize throwing a bottle is deadly force? I joined this site for aliens lol...and I find its filled with people who hate cops at any chance they can for illogical reasons...Im not saying all cops are good cause there are some turd cops out there for sure...but I would wager there are turds everywhere you go...It just frustrates me to see people being so anti cop without even understanding the law...you keep bringing up the constitution...point to me what you specifically want me to read or see....

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


haha I think we are the only two left on this thread!
either way thx for the conversation.....i have nothing against you personally...just a frustrated cop here man.

reply to post by cosmicexplorer

Once again..the Mcdonalds case is a civil case...the police do not enforce civil law...they have nothing to do with it..

Once again, you brought up the point that police "could be sued" if they didn't arrest the man. That suit you're claiming can be brought against a police officer is a civil suit, and can only be brought against a police officer if that plaintiff has standing. In order for the plaintiff to have standing that person (or group of people) have to show that an injury was caused by the police officer due to his failure to uphold the law and arrest the man. All of that is a civil suit. You brought this up not I, so when you make statements such as the one quoted above it demands a retraction, or clarification, such as the one I just offered you on a silver platter. Stop framing this as if I have needlessly brought civil suits into this discussion, you did, not I.

It is comments like this that confirm you have no idea what you are talking about with law and just yell "constitution" whenever you feel like.

There is no excuse for you to have no idea what I am talking about with the law. The law is simple, true, universal, and absolute. The law is self evident, unlike notions you put forth such as that the individual rights of a person no longer matters because legislatures wrote up these "laws" that forced police officers to cough up gobs of phlegm and spit all over the rights of people, in certain circumstances, and people shouldn't blame the cops for this and should just shrug their shoulders and be just as mystified as the cop, and if they have to blame someone, blame the priest class lawyer sect and their legislative utterances of mystical incantations.

The law is not mystifying, and there is nothing mystical about the right to due process of law. Due process demands that when the awesome machinery of the state is used to arrest and charge a man with a crime, that a warrant is necessary based upon reasonable cause. A picture posted on Facebook - as disturbing as it is - is dubiously reasonable cause, at best. Someone has claimed that a family member alerted the police, and in fairness to the state, presumably an investigation was done. The big problem with this thread is that no evidence of that investigation is readily apparent.

This fairness to the state I grant, I do so judiciously, which is to say a judge will give benefit of the doubt that an investigation was done, when considering the claims, but if all doubt is removed and it is clear, or even appears as if no real investigation was done, and the arrest was made based solely on the picture posted on Facebook and a call from a "family member" who expressed concern, then the judge will have an obligation to dismiss the case. This fairness granted the state is a judicious fairness.

I am not, however, a judge. I best function in this thread as a member of the jury, and as such I am required to presume innocence. It is my lawful responsibility as a jury member to presume innocence. It is incumbent upon the state to show that an actual injury was done, and most likely, in this case of aggravated assault, mens rea is a part of what the state must prove. A tall order for the state, given the immediate circumstances. You have been unable to fill that order, and if there is someone in this thread who has, and I have missed this post, it remains incumbent upon those bringing the charges of a crime to show that crime was committed.

The mens rea factor alone makes filling that tall order improbable, and you even admit, by use of certain language, that it is likely this case will be dismissed by a judge. You use language such as "Judges filter" and "punishment" in regards to law, posing irrelevant questions in a hopeless attempt to distract from the reality, and then amusingly assert that your fantastical world of the mystifying "law" is magically transformed to "reality on the street" while the rest of the people - and presumably this includes the people who actually know the law - live in a "fantasy land".

Under the rule of law, no one filters the law, plunder, theft, rape, and any other injury is a crime and need no legislation at all in order to be lawfully enforced. Indeed, all it really takes is a verified oath from the victim swearing under penalty of perjury that they have been injured. Based upon this oath, the state is compelled to act and the aid the victim in seeking remedy. Not "punishment" but remedy.

If you had any interest in truly understanding the simplicity of what I am speaking to, you actually have an organization of Sheriff's, police, and other law enforcement agents, both retired and active, that has plenty of information for you to consider. That organization is The Oath Keepers.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Ok...I think we are both assuming different things...You assume there was no investigation that led to the arrest and I assume there was one which led to the arrest...I tried to put myself in your shoes and I would agree...making an arrest off only a picture alone would mean there was no investigation. However, back to square 1, we don't know the details of the case.

Originally posted by cosmicexplorer
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Ok...I think we are both assuming different things...You assume there was no investigation that led to the arrest and I assume there was one which led to the arrest...I tried to put myself in your shoes and I would agree...making an arrest off only a picture alone would mean there was no investigation. However, back to square 1, we don't know the details of the case.

Which is precisely what I have been arguing all along. I can certainly appreciate that as a cop you would have a proclivity towards assuming an investigation was done, and I admire your willingness to restrain that proclivity long enough to understand my position. This point I am making, but above and beyond that is the point that this man, if arraigned and plead to the charge, deserves a fair trial which includes a jury of his peers. That jury of his peers has an obligation to assume what I have been assuming and demand that the prosecution prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that an investigation actually took place and that this investigation bore fruit to reasonably justify an arrest.