- Jun 12, 2001
As has already been explained to you, people are only required to comply with LAWFUL orders. Telling a suspect that has only been detained that they must stop recording the interaction is not a lawful order in the state of CA.Not at all. Being innocent until proven guilty, is the state of every criminal too. How are police to apprehend people if they don't have the control to do so? On the contrary, vigorous apprehension of criminals is what keeps the rest of us safe.
Ridiculous argument. When did I ever state that anyone should be denied a trial? Do you not have any idea how the legal system works?
Besides, guilt has nothing to do with whether someone should be detained using force if they won't comply, nor is it more justifiable to use excessive violence against someone even if it a certainty they are guilty, unless there is imminent danger to others at that moment.
Nope, it's you taking my argument in a direction I didn't, hoping you can then make a counter argument that isn't nonsense, except you're not even doing well at that.
At no point did I offer or suggest to impose any judgement for stealing.
If you are accused, and police come and investigate, you have to comply with their orders, you and everyone else, guilty or not. At the same time, because we have rights, we can't be indefinitely detained, have to be arrested or let free fairly soon. It “must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop…” (US v. Segoviano).
The absurd ideas you have, would effectively keep anyone guilty from being detained, and potentially arrested, if they simply didn't want to be. Someone can just choose not to comply and leave and police can do nothing because it would be "violent excessive force" to stop you, if you continued to resist?
That's not at all how reality or your rights, work. Clearly you are so deep into delusion on this topic that there's no helping you and hopefully you won't pull this nonsense in front of police if they do ever have a cause to detain you. It won't turn out well.
I've wasted enough time on this topic.
And yeah dude, in your last post you did argue that a person could be considered guilty on the basis of accusation, using the specious logic that accusation is rare enough to warrant such.
But, this being the internet, of course you're denying saying what we can all go back and see you said.
But it is always fun to see an RWNJ get triggered and reverse course when it's suggested that they might be done unto as they wish to do unto. Never fails.