Kennedy

OK, here we go. We can only speculate, but I think we can all agree the woman the officer is grabbing when the video starts was told to leave. When she refused to leave, she was trespassing. Being a private business, they can tell anyone to leave for any reason or no reason at all. In this case, the woman was being loud and obnoxious and disrupting the restaurant. We don't know if a store employee told her to leave, or if the off duty officers in their capacity as location security told her to leave. Either way, she didn't. She was then trespassing. We don't know what dialogue the officer and Suspect #1 in teh grey shirt may have had. (I hate videos that start in the middle of an incident) The officer at some point chose to arrest her. She actively resisted. She physically struggeld to avoid complying with the officers lawful instructions. (more than verbal, more than passive resistance, less than assault to escape) At this point, she's now added a resisting arrest charge. In NC, it's RDO. While the officer is attempting to arrest Suspect #1 over her resistance, the second woman in the black dress steps in. In addition to grabbing the officer while he's trying to arrest someone else (is this EVER a good idea? NO!) Suspect #2 pokes the officer in the eye/face. The officer tries to brush her off so he can complete the arrest of Suspect #1. At this point, suspect number two assaults the officer with a closed fist strike apparently aimed at the officer's face. (we commonly call this punching the cop in the mouth; also NEVER a good idea) Now Suspect #2 is the priority arrest for the officer. Despite what some seem to think, officers are not required to only use equal or lesser force against a suspect. The best practice for an officer faced with resistance is to end it as quickly as possible. This reduces the likelihood of injury to bystanders, officer, and suspect. After Suspect #2 struck the officer, a TASER would not have been unreasonable or excessive, per law, court decisions, and most department's procedures/regulations. The officers took Suspect #2 to the ground (generally the safest place for everyone). They handcuffed her. They escorted her out to a cruiser for transport. We don't know if they went back for Suspect #1, but I hope they did. Questions to be answered: (1) Was the arrest of Suspect #1 justified? Yes. Trespassing. (2) Was the force used against Suspect #1 justified? Yes. Active resistance. (3) Did Suspect #2 obstruct and assault the officer? Yes. (4) Was the arrest of Suspect #2 justified? Yes. See above. (5) Was the force used against Suspect #2 justified? Yes. (6) Could the officer have made better choices? Yes. This is with the benefit of hindsight and review of the video, something the offcier doens't have, and a standard the officer cannot and shoould not be held to (so says SCOTUS). The officer could have kept himself in better shape. If he didn't, the officer could have used Jerbal Voodoo on Suspect #1 to attempt to gain voluntary compliance (he may have, we don't have full video). The officer could have tried force other than yanking on Suspect #1's arm to get her out of the booth. The back and forth looks bad, and it gets Suspect #2 all riled up. Joint locks and pain compliance were options, as were clearing the booth to create space, or pepper spray. Pepper spray is not usually a great option due to the crowded area and poor ventilation. Officer #2 could have stepped in sooner and moved Suspect #2 back before the face poking and officer's push that led to the assault on officer #1. After that, the could have decision tree gets too big to even describe here. If I had one criticism, I'd say the first officer was in too much of a hurry. He looked like he was reacting to the suspect instead of acting to create a desired result. Too many departments don't have the money to offer truly high quality training to their officers whether it comes to use of force, shooting, or driving (the three biggest liability areas for PDs/SOs). I'd bet the officers had never trained use of force in a tight spaces or even how to deal with suspects hanging on to objects to avoid being taken away. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Cell Video of Arrest and Use of Force Cell Video from the other side So what do you all think of the arrest and the use of force? In short, I believe the arrest and the use of force were justified, though not the most effective tactics. I don't think the officers were wrong, but I think they could have done it better. I'll add my reasoning after a few posts. Questions? Concerns? Complaints? Constructive Criticism? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

It seems everybody but you understands what income means. The Supreme Court said so. An important principle taken from Eisner v. Macomber is that the word "income" in the Sixteenth Amendment is generally given its ordinary plain English meaning, and wealth and property that is not income may not be taxed as income by the Federal Government. And as has been pointed out to you, tax code specifies what income they count. So are you the only one here who doesn't know what income means? Now get back under your bridge. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Nah, it was SPECTRE. Or maybe Cobra. Hellfire Club? Could have even been the illuminati in league with Freemasons and the Knights Templar. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

The simple answer to most of these unanswerable questions is "I don't answer hypothetical questions in court." Now counselor, yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

What the he'll are you going on about? The definition on income, as listed under title 26, section 61, has been posted for you already, not once but twice. TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter B, PART I, Sec. 61. Sec. 61. Gross income defined (a) General definition Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items; (2) Gross income derived from business; (3) Gains derived from dealings in property; (4) Interest; (5) Rents; (6) Royalties; (7) Dividends; (8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments; (9) Annuities; (10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts; (11) Pensions; (12) Income from discharge of indebtedness; (13) Distributive share of partnership gross income; (14) Income in respect of a decedent; and (15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust. (b) Cross references For items specifically included in gross income, see part II (sec. 71 and following). For items specifically excluded from gross income, see part III (sec. 101 and following). So the definition is in the code. Next topic. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Not the first time. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Wow, that was tough, huh? Wikipedia: Income (United States legal definitions) If you want to get technical, you can check in with these folks. http://www.fasb.org/home For a government plain language definition you can got the the IRS 1040, or related gov sites. http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/training/web/calculator/definitions/irs.cfm Per the Supreme Court, income in the legal sense is given its common meaning. See the Eisner v. Macomber case. But then I'm expecting you to read and comprehend legal text and court decision. I really should know better. Oh wait, the SCOTUS is a federal court, and you think tht means they can't rule on federal tax law. Andy was right. While it's fun to show how easy it is to answer your questions, arguing with you is completely pointless. Get back under your bridge. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

All those mean nasty horrible Republicans in Massachusetts are taking care of the unions there for you. Oh wait. Oops. It's the Democrats doing that. Doing just what they wanted to crucify Wisconsin for proposing. "Things that make you go 'hmmm...'" witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

(A) I agree, at least in a courtroom or debate club setting. (B) Accusations, esp when repeated often enough by enough parties, seems to be enough to convict someone in the public eye. (C) I wish "the public" were smart enough to consider A and the effect it should have on B. (D) You don't need to explain the legalese and debate club/forensics/logic terms, at least not to me. I spend too much time in the courtroom as it is. Truly annoying is the public defender rookie who thinks you can't offer an argument without the phrase "jointly and severally" thrown in. I guess he heard one too many judgments involving restitution or civil liability, and now it comes out every time he opens his mouth. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

So now the Sheriff is "some nutter"? Well, I wish the reporter had dug deeper. Maybe they are right now. Have you got any FACTS which show Sheriff Dever's statements are false? Or so you just believe the BATFE's denial because that fits with your world view? Congratulations on a wonderful personal attack. Of course, in addition to being poor manners and failing to abide by forum rules, you failed to post anything remotely relevant to the actual poster. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

"Not impossible?" "Not improbable?" Come on. Sorry, but those are, at best, warm-fuzzies that mean nothing. People want to believe something, so they'll believe it. I agree. But again, that's exactly what people said about Gunwalker. I'm not saying it's true. The sheriff is. Do I believe him? Well, I believe him more than Border Patrol talking heads in DC, but that's not saying much. Look how long it took any national news sources to run with the GunWalker story. They all pissed on it as conspiracy nut ravings, until the BATFE agents starting coming out and going on records. Agents. Plural. What news sources aren't lazy? How many of them still run investigative reporting? When is the last time you read something that was well researched, well written, and in a major paper? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Some people just need a good old-fashioned ass-kicking. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

In most places, yes. In this case, yes. Well he's not a politician as in elected lawmaker. He's elected to be the highest law enforcement officer in the county. (I think he runs the local jail and security for state courts in the county, but I'm not sure) I don't see any other sheriffs denying his claims. The article mentioned one sheriff who said he hadn't heard the same claims. He didn't say Sheriff Dever was lying. If you were a BP agent with claims of wrongdoing by superiors in Washington, would you talk[url] to a sympathetic ear, or someone unlikely to believe you? His sources are unnamed. So were many other whistleblowers to start. Hell, half the articles in today's paper list "unnamed sources". I'm not saying his claims are true. I'm saying I'm not discounting them yet. It is an interesting and not impossible story. At this point I wonder if it would even qualify as improbable. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Before answering, I have to ask you, is every shrink infallible? Obviously not. We aren't dealing with black and white. Humans are a messy topic no matter how you look at it. My view is that potential "nutters" and "loonies" should be evaluated, confined and involuntarily committed for evaluation if necessary. After that, a judge should rule on whether or not a person should lose their right. (one point: involuntary committment is already a disqualifier, by law, from purchase of firearms; the problem is reporting is not up to par) That way, there is no need for secret No Buy lists run by some faceless and unaccountable bureaucrat. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Oh, I didn't say I hadn't voted before posting... witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Shoot, and I thought you'd have an ad with Roberta Mancino in it. Good ad you posted though. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Duh, because guns are bad stupid peasants can't be trusted with them. [/sarcasm] witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Then you haven't followed kallend's posts closely enough. i think you're a little bit delusional... Irony score: OFF THE FRIGGIN CHARTS !!! witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

People said the same thing about Project Gunrunner when it first hit the light. I don't give much benefit of the doubt when it comes to alleged government screwups and spin doctoring. As for being the "claim of one elected sherrif, and isn't corroborated by anything or anyone," well, he states his sourcse are BO Agents and supervisors, and I understand if BP Agents aren't too keen on throwing away their career to be the first whistleblower. Be that as it may, I appreciate the vote of confidence, even if it excludes the thread OP. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

It's more like an Irish bedtime story- there are no happy fairy tale endings. "Death of Empires" strikes again? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Never has a Bonfire saying been more true in the Speakers Corner: "This Thread Is WORTHLESS Without PICS!" witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

State police: Cell phone data only taken with consent, warrant Well, they are saying their policy is such that it is morally and legally defensible. I hope that is the policy and that their officers are following it. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I guess being a Chauvanist pig is OK if you write for the local liberal rag. Anyone care to place a bet on the outcome of any interaction between this putz and our Nightingale, or even better, Amazon? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*