Pixiq

That cop needs a refresher on how to physically control the person he is arresting. Seriously, he took way to long. I understand the crowd forming and then having a person from the mob join in attacking the cop would make him defensive. I shudder to think what would have happened in a place like Oakland. But really, just put your thumb on the back of the base of her thumb, wrap your fingers around the palm, and twist. Slap the cuffs on. It’s simple.

Carlos, I AM actually a little surprised, but I shouldn’t be. Whilst I was typing a response in a thread about this incident on a message board that I frequent, I figured that this would be a topic on here. Here’s was I said on the other board:

I’m all for pointing out when the police have abused their authority, and the Seattle PD is notorious for doing that, but I don’t think that the officer was out of line in this case. The woman who was punched physically interfered with her friend being arrested, who, I should add, was resisting the officer. Could the officer have resolved the situation without taking that action? Probably, but again, I don’t believe that he used an unacceptable amount of force. It’s not like he whipped out his nightstick and beat her into unconsciousness. He threw one punch, then proceeded to finish taking control of the situation without further violence.

was=what

That officer needs some serious retraining. Yes, that woman had it coming to her, in a way, but he should have taken her to the ground and cuffed her. I feel for him in a way because he was in a real sticky situation being surrounded by a bunch of people who were closing in on him, but if he would have taken the girl to the ground as he should have been trained to to, the scene wouldn’t have escalated in the way that it did. At the same time, I hope they throw the damn book at her also, because there is no doubt that she assaulted him.

From this video the girl in the pink seemed to attack the officer. The officer did use a little to much force, but at the same time the pink shirt girl quickly got out of the brawl. I’m surprise the pink shirt girl wasn’t arrested as well. I think it’s fair to say the pink shirt girl gets punched and not arrested.

They were both arrested

Agreed, they both got off light if you ask me. And if you review the start of the video, she was being arrested for pushing the cop, not for jaywalking.

This case is actually a great example of why filming is so crucial – If this video never surfaced, we would be hearing about how a cop punched a jaywalker for no reason and there were 8 witnesses.
Dan Linehan recently posted..Iceland Passes Seminal Legislation to Protect Wikileaks

Yep Ms Pink had it coming to her. She had no right to involve herself in the Officer making an arrest. She is just making a bad situation worse.

Fair point being made about not wanting to take her down to the ground. I’m sure that the officer was concerned about his safety if he took the person he was arresting to the ground. Who knows who might have had a go then. Best to stay on feet and your wits about you.

Now I’m not sure what the law is in the US, but here in NZ it is an offence not to come to the assistance of a Police Officer effecting an arrest if asked.

I have helped Police Officers in NZ make arrests in a similar situation. Mainly helping them to hold the arrested person, so that the cuff’s could go on. I would think that most NZ’ders would assist an officer that is alone and trying to effect an arrest.

Then again – NZ Police are not armed whilst doing general duties and on patrol – and there is less of them and us situation here as well generally speaking.

I’m actually not surprised at all by your article or opinion on this. Most of your articles are very fair, and on the side of justice, and as I said on a couple other forums where this video was posted, she DID have it coming to her. If the girls had acted with a little sense, they probably would have been released with a verbal warning. Instead they escalated things to the point where they both got arrested for assaulting an officer and resisting arrest.

I will echo some of the other posts on here in my agreement that the officer needs further training on how to properly restrain a suspect, so as to immobilize them without harming them. Hell, I’m only 160 lbs, and I’ve restrained 250 lb combative drunks with more success, at the bar I moonlight at. (Of course, years of practicing kenpo probably help with that.)

I concurr.

Okay, where to begin?
First: the police have no real authority, it is a perceived authority based upon our social training (read: indoctrination) and our submission. They are not accountable to the public, obviously due to the sickening amount of propaganda that is swallowed wholly every day) and therefore are not performing a public service. In fact, they are serving then, a private service. As in any corporation that charters business with government, they are held accountable to the governmental powers that also assist in whole the corporate dominance of our lives. Our media, corporate, our food, corporate, our water, corporate, and now, apparently our freedom is corporate. This is the same policing tactics used by King George of the Britains to control the population of the colonies, that was eventually thwarted by use of force known as the first American Revolution. Yes, those founding fathers you claim to love and respect so much, were cop killers.

Second, to take the stance that any abusive person is somehow under the protection of the law is a gross and dismissible one indeed. You are identifying with the abuser in this case because you some how feel a sick entitlement to watch people of color and women be abused. You assume that this is how it should be, and any resistance to that is a crime. It is not. It may be against the law of the abuser, of course, but that is not a surprise as any power structures first move is to criminalize resistance to its authority. This is also called tyranny, fascism, and dictatorial rule. This, above all else, is the firs thing to fight against.

Third. The mere presence of police is a threat to the safety of our community. They have proven themselves to be vicious and brutal, stopping at nothing to achieve their directive, which is to control the movement of the people, particularly black, brown and poor people. They do have to “whip out (their) nightstick and beat people into unconsciousness” to be an aggressive and violent force. Their presence alone acts as a constant psychological and most times, but not always, physical reminder of the lesser position of the people. They are a repressive force of an oppressive system. Their entire job is to ensure revenue for the state, in the form of fines and full houses for privatized prisons. They are, in no exaggeration, the modern slave patrol, over seeing the masses and meeting the worker quota for the state. Much as Nat Turner defied his enslavement with force, as should we.

The fact that there are so many licking the boots of these pigs, makes incidents of fascistic rule in the past all that more plausible. You seemingly would have also followed the jews, gypsies, homosexuals, intellectuals and dissidents to the trains to make sure that your streets were safe for the SS. You are deplorable in every way I can think of, and I spit at you.

There is time when every society reaches critical mass of exploitation and oppression. That time is long come and the reaping of what the power structure has sown will be a harsh and hard one to see. There are two sides in this war for freedom, which side are you on?

“Stay out of black neighborhoods?”

Yes indeed. Doing so is probably good for your longevity. I make it a point to stay out of the city of Oakland (CA) at all costs. I’d not want to hear that dreaded question, “Hey honkey, whadda ya do’n in OUR town?”!!

“First: the police have no real authority.”

Right there is where I stopped reading your post.

Yeah. Probably for the best. Any real ideas that challenge the bullshit life you lead would possibly disrupt the flow. Go one now. Go back to sleep. Nothing to see here.

Those ad hominen attacks contribute nothing here.

OK, I learned that lesson which I suppose, I already knew, but it was mid afternoon so I didn’t think much about it.

As to learning that the police have no power or what power they choose to apply they do so according to political favoritism – well I knew that.

I’m a subscriber to the saying, “Dial 911 and die.” That is, dialing for help will not bring help.

Actually, rabble, your view of the perfect world is the world in which the strong brutally rule the weak.

Even though cops have, do, and will, violate some individuals’ rights on occaison, that isn;t becuase of a basic failure in the idea of a rule of law (as opposed to the lawless Hobbsean rule of force you prefer). It is because police agencies, AS ALL HUMAN ACTIVITIES, are imperfect.

That’s the nature of being human.

Want to live without law (which requires the enforcers thereof)? Try the backcountry of Somalia. You’ll need to bring plenty of guns and ammo, preferrably plenty of firends with their own guns and copious ammo.

Write back in five years and tell me how that works out.

Hey, Brodie, any time you want to be part of the people changing things, just get off your ass, regster to vote, and then actually show up for ALL elections. Hell, most places you can pick up an absentee ballot, no questions asked, so it’s not like you actually have to even stand in line to vote.

If you’re eligible to vote and you don’t bother registering or don’t bother voting? STFU — you HAVE made your choice. Your choice is to meekly accept whatever other people hand you.

Not eligible to vote? Then you’re either:

A. Under 18 years old. STFU — children don’t get to make important decisions for THEMSELVES, why in the HELL would we want them making even more important decisions for the adults? When you turn 18 and can make grown up decisions, make sure one of your FIRST stops is at the Registrar’s Office, get registered, and make sure you VOTE in every election.

B. Not a citizen. STFU — You want to run this nation, you need to be a full-fledged MEMBER of this nation. Get citizenship, register to vote, and VOTE.

C. A convicted felon in a state were felons lose their vote. STFU — you’ve already proven you cannot run your OWN life, why would we want you to have a voice in making decisions that affect the well being, rights, and very survival of over 300 million others?

Or is your basic complaint that so few people disagree with your utopia of no laws, but rather “nature, red in tooth and claw” where life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”

We can certainly argree on that.

Well, it would be nice if you could actually give teh Constitutional basis of this “right to determine that you are being unjustly arrested, even though you have done things that are against the law”.

I suspect you cannot, because no such right is enumerated, NOR HAS EVER BEEN RECOGNIZED.

The problem with “rights” that people claim exist merely becuase an individual claims they do (without any support in law, court precedent, or the Constutution) is you then cannot argue when the officer turns and SHOOTS someone like these two girls, claiming an unenumerated (and unfounded) right to do so.

Any “right” you claim to justify the use of force (or even escalating to violence) better be well founded, lest it be used against you, with EXACTLY the same authority behind the person assaulting you as you claim allows you to assault others.

Someone resisting, physically struggling with, or striking a uniformed armed officer can be presumed MORE dangerous, becuase they are hostile enough to take on a visibly armed person.

If you’ll attack a “brutal, unjust cop” who is carrying a gun, nightstick, probably pepper spray and/or a taser, and who has a dedicated radio link to bring him more armed buddies in minutes (including better armed and armored tactical officers) ,God help the helpless little old lady who accdientally gets in your way on the street!

While I’m one of the first to cry “Bullshit!” when a cop claims that “officer safety” trumps basic civil liberties, anyone crazy, violent, or stupid enough to KNOWINGLY attack or struggle with a cop is also crazy, stupid, or violent enough to assault that cop withlethal force. . . such as with the officer’s OWN equipment. Add in a group of people, surrounding the officer at close range, ANY of whom could ALSO decide to “jump in”, and it’s easy to understand that a cop in those circumstances needs to put down any physical opposition quickly, because as near as he can tell, his LIFE is in danger.

Unfortunately, he was sturggling with a kid whom he DIDN’T want to start whaling on with his baton, which seriously limits his actions.

Sure, he could have ended the fight really quickly, by crippling the first girl and bouncing her head off the sidewalk, and then turning with baton or pistol on the second. THAT would have unjustified, excessive force.

But not by much — increase the size of the crowd (again, ONE cop operating alone), drop visibility, or change any one of a number of variables, and the justifiable force gets much higher very quickly.

And nothing much less than that level of force would have ended the confrontation very quickly, as long as teh supects continued to resist. Not only did I not notice a Taser (perhaps the LEAST damaging level of force beyond trying to restrain a suspect by merely holding on), but things were too tight for him to have used one even if he had it in a belt holster.

What was he supposed to do, say “OK, miss, since you insist you will not go with me peacefully, I won’t bother trying to enforce the law anymore.”

DO NOT FIGHT COPS WITH FISTS. Fight them with LAWYERS. You get physical with a cop becuase you don’t like the laws, and WILL get physical right back — and he is SUPPOSED to escalate at least one step ahead of YOU.

(Remember that the cop doesn’t personally write the laws — and he has to enforce even the laws he disagrees with. . . a good idea once you realize that some people don’t agree with laws prohibiting race-based segregation and terrorism; “I don’t agree with that law” is NOT excuse for a guy who swears an oath to enforce the laws to refuse to enforce it. Whether it’s jaywalking, possession of a joint, or anti-lynching laws, the cop is sworn to enforce the law. Let him CHOOSE which laws he will enforce, and some will choose to fail to enforce the laws YOU like. . . with full moral justification coming from YOUR mouth.)

Steve, it’s not against the law in the US to not help a law enforcement officer, but many people would probably consider it bad form not to give some sort of assistance, especially if asked.

More to the point, he is a poster child for why we should just ignore claims of police abuse without even investigating.

Crying wolf is a bad, bad idea. It trivializes REAL abuse and marginalizes any organization that tries to highlight abuse. So more abuse will result, thanks to people like G20 Sided Die.

(An actual conservative)

Let me be clear, I am not adviocating failing to investigate plausible claims of abuse, only that many people (likely most, and not limited to those Doubleplus ungood conservatives) will feel that investigating all but the most grotesquely obvious examples of abuse.

Ask a REAL rape victim how she (or he) feels when someone claims that a guy pressures them into sex by extended whining is “rape”, or everytime a very public rape charge turns out to be WHOLLY unsupported, and initiated by someone who was either crazy, or who thought that a rape claim would get them out of a jam. Ask rape support groups who work with survivors of violent rape how they feel, and how it impacts their work, when that crap gets heavy attention by the Usual Suspects who all insist on screaming louder than anyone else in support of ludicrous (and false, or absurdly inapplicable) claims of rape.

When you champion BS cases like this, you help conceal the REAL predators and offenders who actually do hurt innocent people.

Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!

Well for starters, the Constitution is not a basis for rights. It only recognizes pre-existing rights, and does not create them. But if you must, the Ninth Amendment covers it. Just because a right is not enumerated doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

And then you show your ignorance because that right HAS been recognized. In fact, the following states recognize that right: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Prior to that ALL states recognized that right. For more information, see here: http://nationalexpositor.com/News/1005.html

The right to resist has its basis in the right to self defense. All life has this right. Because government agents, including police, have the ability to take life, and cause harm, this right is necessary. If they are operating under a just law to arrest someone, they have the power and duty to take someone down with force. However, if they are operating under an unjust law, or are using that law as a cover for aggression, they power is null and void, and it is the right and DUTY to resist with full force.

Yes, resisting may not be the best course of action. Yes, fighting them with lawyers may be a better solution. However, there are MANY cases where the victim did not have the chance to fight in court. Because they were murdered by government agents. A right unused doesn’t cease to exist. It just goes unused.

Shawn, isn’t “the law” just some words written on a piece of paper that no one ever signed? If so, how does that endow people called police with the authority to stop someone from jaywalking or give them immunity to being tried for assault, as in this case? Magic? I don’t care what the so called “law” says. It endows no one with any legitimate authority in the first place.

Brodie, any criminal laws applicable in your state were likely signed by whoever the governor was at the time that they were passed. If a law is not signed, then it is not enforceable, unless the veto of a governor or president is overturned by a state legislature or the US Congress. For an offense such as jaywalking, that’s a violation, and was likely voted on by city councils and signed into law by whatever mayors were in office in their respective cities at the time.

With that said, what has prompted you to think what you do about laws? Are you an anarchist?

Uh, sorry,

They are discussing the right to resist an UNLAWFUL arrest or UNLAWFUL assualt.

Not one where teh suspect merely feels it is “unjust”.

BIG difference.

You see, applied the way YOU want it to mean, it would be a right for ANY suspect to KILL ANY cop, and claim that he “thought” the arrest was “unjust”.

As the article you linked points out, if you resist, then force WILL be escalated (that’s what cops are supposed to do). So, evenutually, your “right to resist” becomes a self-defence right involving lethal force.

In other words, you do not want the cops to have the authority to arrest ANYONE, ANYWHERE, for ANY REASON. . . becuase even if they have a warrant based on 100 eyewitnesses, camera footage, and DNA evidence, the suspect can always claim the arrest is somehow “unjust”.

Again, with the 9th amendment — you cannot just claim it covers any right you wish to claim that doesn’t happen to be written down.

Becuase people can (and DO) claim all sorts of fantasy rights that no one outside their little minds understands, much less accepts.

This is teh problem with relying on 9th Amendment support of an unenumerated alleged right — your legal protection of that “right” is then subject to the whim of the moment. At one point, teh “right” to own other human beings was accepted — even accepted as settled fact in teh original Constitution. Now, however, the right to not be enslaved is so recognized by the public that, even if teh 13th Amendment were somehow declared to have been improperly passed and thus void (keep in mind that centuries of jurisprudence stand against that — I’m just using it as a hypotheical for a little thought experiment here), the right it protects would still be enforceable through the 9th, even though it would be no longer “ennumerated”. Because the American people accept that the right to not be enslaved is an inherent right of all humanity, regardless of what legal system they liven under.

Your right to kill police officers becuase you don’t want to be arrested for a blatant violation of the law committed in their presense? Ummm. . . not so much.

Hell, the Mississippi Supreme Court case cited in the article you linked doesn;t even claim that much! It REJECTED the idea that the officer had no right to fight back, using lethal force if needed, EVEN IF THE ARREST WAS UNLAWFUL. Because the cop doesn’t lose HIS right to self defense entirely, even if he is the a”aggressor”.

Another court case the article cites, but fails to give CRITICAL imformation in the case : http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=71399db5953d9667945d1510ee8f7225&ema...

Victoria Price Brown v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Yes, the court ruled that Ms. Brown DID have teh right to resist the arrest that was made.

The reason was the officers DID NOT act in good faith — the warrant was for a person with a different name, at a different address.

“Here, the issue is whether, or to what extent, an arrestee may resist an arrest claimed to have been made in ‘good faith’ but made without a lawful warrant or probable cause to arrest for a misdemeanor not committed in the presence of the arresting officers.”

“It has long been held in Virginia that where an officer attempts an unlawful arrest, the officer is an aggressor which gives the arrestee the right to use self-defense to resist so long as the force used is reasonable.”

“The police officers became aggressors when they attempted to arrest a person not named in the capias upon which they relied for the arrest, and they were at fault in the confrontation. See Foote, 11 Va. App. at 69, 396 S.E.2d at 856. Appellant was not required to surrender to the officers based on the capias issued for another person’s arrest. Because the arrest was unlawful, appellant had the right to resist upon self-defense principles. ”

As I’ stated before — you have the right to resist UNLAWFUL force used against you, even if that person has a badge.

You DO NOT have the blanket right to resist any arrest YOU feel is “unjust”.

The police do NOT deal in “justice”. They are an arm of the executive — they EXECUTE the law.

The COURTS are where you go for “justice”. Not the street.

If the cops are going to arrest you PEACEFULLY, you PEACEFULLY fight your battle in court. Then you sue the ever-loving shit out of the cops, the department, the government that these cops work for, and anyone else invloved in the unjust arrest.

If the cops just pull up and want to start whaling on you with sticks, without even TRYING to lawfully (if mistakenly) arrest you, then it’s an assault, and you can fight back.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

When you start wanting to get physical with a cop over SOMEONE ELSE’S ticketable offence, you have just assualt the cop in the course of his duties — he not only has a right to defend himself, but a DUTY to arrest you. (The origin of this mess, as I understand it — even the FIRST female shown wasn’t even the original subject; she stepped up and started to interfere with the cop writing a TICKET to SOMEONE ELSE. . . that’s an arrestable offense; the SECOND female went and assaulted a police officer while interfering with the execution of his LAWFUL duties — that’s an arrestable offence.)

But Shawn, the so called highest law in the land, the constitution, was never signed. But even if a governor signs a bill, how does that obligate anyone to obey it or endow anyone with authority to enforce it? How can someone sign a contract for someone else without consent?

And no, I am not an anarchist. I am a realist. The reality is, that the government is a criminal organization, since it has no legitimate authority, unless you can somehow show me otherwise (voting does not count, otherwise two people could vote to steal from another, as long as they let the victim vote). All I want is for the government to leave me alone, to stop stealing from me and to stop treating me like a slave. If everyone else wants to have masters, then that is your choice.

Note: The unasked stuff is if the officer is being assaulted, and similar situations.

Brodie, you’re an idiot, so here’s a history lesson for you.

You say “the so called highest law in the land, the constitution, was never signed”, but that is simply not true. The Constitution WAS signed by 39 delegates from the original 13 colonies in 1787. It was ratified on this day in June 1788.

“But even if a governor signs a bill, how does that obligate anyone to obey it or endow anyone with authority to enforce it? How can someone sign a contract for someone else without consent?”

Because the PEOPLE elected him to make those decisions! Seriously Brodie? Can you not grasp even the simplest of concepts? Simply because you do not agree with a particular law, does not invalidate it. You first have to petition the people to see if others are of like mind with you, and then, if you obtain enough signatures, you submit it to the state house of representatives/senate to vote on.

Until then, if you don’t follow the law as it is written, you will be subject to penalties, and/or arrest.

There are plenty of laws I don’t agree with, though I am smart enough not to challenge the police on laws they are enforcing. If they are enforcing laws that I know for a fact don’t exist on the books, then yes, I will challenge his knowledge of the law, though I will do so with passive resistance, never with a struggle.

These girls in the video were ignorant to the concept that active resistance does NOT work against a police officer. You will lose everytime.

History lesson over.

Rance, I guess only someone who is uneducated would resort to calling other people names. The signatures on the constitution are only for witnessing. They did not sign it agreeing to abide by it. There is a big difference in law between signing a document and witnessing a document. They were just witnesses.

As to the claim that the PEOPLE elected a governor, you are just denying reality. A FEW people voted for him. Everyone else voted for someone else or did not vote. Again, if you think this is a legitimate way to obligate people to obey other people, then two people should be able to steal from a third, so long as they give the third person the opportunity to vote. Do you think that is a legitimate way to take money from someone?

So Geodkyt, you think voting validates stealing from others and bossing other people around? If so, then it should be OK for two people to steal from a third, as long as they give the third the opportunity to vote. Otherwise, you need to grow up and look at reality, and see the government for what it is, just a criminal organization that indoctrinated you in its schools for twelve years and has made you its happy little puppet.

Brodie wrote: “The signatures on the constitution are only for witnessing. They did not sign it agreeing to abide by it.” I’m calling BULLSHIT on this unless you can produce some solid documentation.

Brodie, your detachment from reality is disturbing. Those who have the legal right to vote, but do not exercise that right, have, in my opinion, forfeited their right to complain when a politician they don’t like does or votes for something with which they don’t agree. In other words, if you could have voted, but didn’t, too bad.

As for people who did vote, but their candidate or proposition didn’t win or pass, feel free to complain, but please acknowledge the simple fact that the guy/woman with the most votes is the winner. Your favored candidates are not always going to come out on top.

In regard to the US Constitution, do you seriously think that the men who signed it did not intend to follow the laws set forth in that document?

Finally, I’m going to humor you and ask, what, in your mind, such as it is, makes a law just and valid, and worthy of following?

Brodie lives in a fabtasy land where NO government is binding, unless by UNANIMOUS decree of teh governed, and NO law is binding, unless by UNANIMOUS decree.

And, apparantly, like some Faustian pact, unless every document is signed (apparantly by every person it applies to), it has no effect.

In other words, Brodie doesn’t feel that ANY law or ANY government is binding on someone who disagrees with it.

Unfortunately, he disregrads the fact that, by insisting that any individual can claim immunity due to non-concurrence, he is in fact stating that it’s fine if other people steal from him, abuse him, or even kill him.

Since the criminal rarely ever individually votes for a criminal law that applies to him — most criminal laws were on the books long before the current generation was alive, even if criminals voted in every election.

OK, Brodie. Should you ever be teh victim of a crime or involved in a civil case, and I am on the jury pool, I shall give you the society you want. I shall vote “Not Guilty” for ANY defendant accused of harming you or offending against you in any fashion, and find for the opposing side in any civil matter.

No, Brodie, I get it.

You are “Every man is an island” kinda guy.

NO law applies to anyone who did not indiviually vote to have THAT law applied to him and then sign the original legistaltion.

To include the Constitution written 200 years before your birth.

In other words, no law actually applies to anyone who doesn’t voluntarily and SPECIFICALLY select to be bound by it, it’s every man for himself.

So, if someone shoots you in the head, that’s OK, if they did not individually and specifically vote for that particular “murder” law, and then sign it themself. (You cannot ethically or morally claim protection OF ANY SORT from a system whose very legitimacy you deny.)

Got it.

Wouldn’t matter. The Constitution is a self-executing document that took affect when the conditions stated in it were met.

That condition is “ratification”, and it was met.

Individual signatures on the Constitution WERE NOT a condition.

Unlike a diabolic contract, your signature (even if in blood) on a document do not prove you agree with it — nor does their absence mean it doesn’t bind you. Many contracts have been proven and enforced in court in the absence of a signature, and many contracts have been voided in court despite having a signature.

Brodie also claims that no vote can be binding on anyone who didn’t HIMSELF choose to vote the same way.

In other words, he doesn’t like to follow laws he doesn’t want.

In which case, what the cop did is perfectly legal, since according to Brodie, there are neither legitimate govenments (NO government above the level of a small private club or a monastery functions by unanimous consent), nor any legitimate laws.

Accoridng to Brodie, there are no “legitimate” laws against punching girls in the face, whether or not you have a reason. Nor are there laws against guys in blue uniforms with shiny badges on their chest just shooting whoever they like.

Becuase one sure sign that someone denies their consent to be bound by a law is if they choose to break said law. Which., in Brodie’s world, means that no conviction or punishment can be conducted under law, since laws are mythical things with no authority.

After all, any govenrment is “just a criminal organization”, so any laws passed under that government have no effect.

Including laws against people maiming killing others for the Hell of it.

Uh, look at any copy of the constitution. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Sigs “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names”

And your point is…?

Who made the first physical contact? In the video it appears that he did. It opens with his hand on her neck and her verbally commanding him to get off. Assuming he made the first physical contact, and knowing that he would not release his hand from her neck as directed, then I don’t think it was wrong of the other girl to shove him. He was given a verbal warning and didn’t listen, THEN her “backup” joined in and shoved him. If he made the first physical contact then they were right to try to fight him off, just as you would any other stranger who comes up to you telling you that you better cross the street the way he wants you to, and then puts his hands on your neck.

Brodie, I called you an idiot, because that was the nicest word in the dictionary to describe the unfathomable level of ignorance you have displayed in your comments on this blog. Any other descriptor would have just been mean.
Rance recently posted..BinaryGravy: RT @healthygulf: BP Deepwater Drilling Disaster: Latest trajectory map http://bit.ly/cv2pFe

Shawn, again, I ask, is it OK for two people to steal from another as long as they let him vote? Would it matter if they let him vote, and he decided not too, would he then have “forfeited” his right to not be stolen from?

Shawn, you asked, “In regard to the US Constitution, do you seriously think that the men who signed it did not intend to follow the laws set forth in that document?

Finally, I’m going to humor you and ask, what, in your mind, such as it is, makes a law just and valid, and worthy of following?”

What does it matter what the men did that wrote the constitution? How can someone be bound by what someone else did? Can you obligate someone else to obey you just because you wrote up a document?

As to what makes a law just and valid, there has to be a victim, for there to be a crime, otherwise there is no dispute.

Geodkyt said, “Unfortunately, he disregrads the fact that, by insisting that any individual can claim immunity due to non-concurrence, he is in fact stating that it’s fine if other people steal from him, abuse him, or even kill him.”

I don’t know how justice would be served in a free world. But I do trust the market would provide far better justice than the government.

Geodkyt,

First of all, if someone shot me in the head, I am dead anyways. Second of all, once people found out the violent nature of the person that shot me, people would be much less likely to do business with that person. Third, he then has to fear for his life, as someone may very well decide to take revenge. And lastly, people get away with murder all the time currently, most especially the government. The U.S. government is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis because of sanctions. And where is their justice? That is far more deaths than individual criminals commit.

The unanimous conset of the STATES.

Not the “unanioums consent of every single individual in every single state.”

Big difference. Words mean things.

Damn Brodie is an idiot. He thinks if someone murders him, the “market” will fix it? Hahahahahahhaa. One need simply look to the Gulf Oil spill and the mortgage crisis to see how well markets operate without oversight.

How’s that market working in Somalia, Afghanistan, Iran, anyway?