I can't breathe!

[averageJOE]

You focused on that, but not the other posts I mentioned.

To be honest, you are just arguing in circles in all your other posts. I mentioned that because it was the only answer you gave. You make sweeping general statements on why you dislike police, why you don't trust them, why nobody should trust them. But when we try to get you to go into more detail you just start repeating yourself.

Mestemia ask you to show a police training manual that uses the words "Lie, Deceive, and Coerce" that you claim has them. Silence on your end.

I asked if you think guilt and innocence should be determined right there on the street between the cop and the person under arrest with on the fly "trials". Silence.

I even tried to play along with you and asked, even if a cop showed evidence to the person they were arresting, WHO then determines the validity and admissibility of that evidence while they are still standing on the street? Silence.

The only answer you gave for anything was how you would resist arrest without getting physical with the cop. And your answer was "flip them off".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All three words missing from your example.

Trying to convince people it's just better to go along with the system isn't coercion? It's always going to be honest? This text does not suggest police consider the rights of a civilian, nor does it encourage police officers to tell people of their rights. They can tell you it's in your interests just to go along (which is a lie: it's better for them if you just go along with it because it cuts out a lot of legal requirements), but it's also a lie of omission to not let people know you have the full legal right and ability to tell the police "no" under most circumstances (and the few in which you can't are very specifically defined).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To be honest, you are just arguing in circles in all your other posts. I mentioned that because it was the only answer you gave. You make sweeping general statements on why you dislike police, why you don't trust them, why nobody should trust them. But when we try to get you to go into more detail you just start repeating yourself.

I also mentioned jerking your hands away, drilling them with questions, protesting them, and even just telling them no. You initially asked how to go about being combative towards the police without actually hitting them, and I gave you what actions I could think of. You seem to be attributing just one answer that I gave to your question as a characteristic of mine (which, you would be correct, I have flipped off police before, challenged their authority, and have called them some names), but it cannot be assumed that is automatically how I react to all police and all police encounters. I kind of felt bad for a sheriff who helped push me out of a snow drift after my tire plastered him with snow.

Mestemia ask you to show a police training manual that uses the words "Lie, Deceive, and Coerce" that you claim has them. Silence on your end.

Do not assume silence is ignoring something. It's much more likely to be I just don't have the time to keep up with every thread.

 

[averageJOE]

I also mentioned jerking your hands away, drilling them with questions, protesting them, and even just telling them no. You initially asked how to go about being combative towards the police without actually hitting them, and I gave you what actions I could think of. You seem to be attributing just one answer that I gave to your question as a characteristic of mine (which, you would be correct, I have flipped off police before, challenged their authority, and have called them some names), but it cannot be assumed that is automatically how I react to all police and all police encounters. I kind of felt bad for a sheriff who helped push me out of a snow drift after my tire plastered him with snow.

Do not assume silence is ignoring something. It's much more likely to be I just don't have the time to keep up with every thread.

OK. So let's start over.

John Doe is stopped and questioned by the police.
The cop then tells John "Turn around you are under arrest for (fill in the blank with whatever crime)."
John Doe says "No! First show me what evidence you have!"
The cop shows him.
At that moment who determines the validity and admissibility the evidence? How do they go about that?
It's just John Doe and the cop standing there. The crime itself and if John Doe actually did it or not is irrelevant. Who determines the admissibility of the evidence?

 

[McBell]

Trying to convince people it's just better to go along with the system isn't coercion? It's always going to be honest? This text does not suggest police consider the rights of a civilian, nor does it encourage police officers to tell people of their rights. They can tell you it's in your interests just to go along (which is a lie: it's better for them if you just go along with it because it cuts out a lot of legal requirements), but it's also a lie of omission to not let people know you have the full legal right and ability to tell the police "no" under most circumstances (and the few in which you can't are very specifically defined).

YOU claimed that three specific words were used in the training manuals.
YOU failed to support that claim.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

At that moment who determines the validity and admissibility the evidence? How do they go about that?

Again, you have missed that I discussed when the police actually have evidence against you.

YOU claimed that three specific words were used in the training manuals.

And I admitted I used the wrong term, even when I posted the quoted material.

YOU failed to support that claim.

No, I did not. I showed they are encouraged to lie and coerce people, even if it isn't the specific wording. I may have had the wrong words, but I was not wrong in the conclusion they lie to people, they coerce cooperation, and you cannot trust them.

 

[McBell]

You really need to work on your back peddling.

 

[averageJOE]

Again, you have missed that I discussed when the police actually have evidence against you.

Police have the final say if evidence is valid and admissible? You're saying all a cop has to do is show John Doe evidence, any evidence, and that automatically determines guilt?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Police have the final say if evidence is valid and admissible? You're saying all a cop has to do is show John Doe evidence, any evidence, and that automatically determines guilt?

Hopefully this will clarify things.
If the police have you, and you know they have you, own up to your actions. If they claim they have you, but don't, then by all means assume the role of adversary.
But the police do not have the final say so. This is ultimately up to a judge. But you, as a person, who did or did not commit a crime, know if the police really have anything on you or not. This is where knowing your rights is paramount. No, telling the cops how wrong they are probably will not get you anywhere on the streets, and a judge may not like seeing someone who is anti-or-combative towards authority, but if they really have nothing and they are arresting you anyways they deserve to be called a ****ing pig, you should not give in and go easily, and you should definitely not hit them (unless they are about to sexually assault you, then by all means beat the living **** out of them if you think you can because road side cavity searches are very illegal, and it would bring the national attention that is deserved of pigs raping people). This does require a strong degree of self-honesty, and it is absolutely necessary you know your rights and know for sure, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you are in the right and the cop is in the wrong, but it is very much better to have fought and lost than to not have fought at all if you are being wronged. Unfortunately society has reached a point in which it will take a number of innocents being martyrs to even begin to correct the grave wrongs we, as civilians, have been subjected to at the hands of those who have sworn to protect and uphold the law.

 

[Thief]

Are we getting any closer ? to.....
Don't wave your hands at the cops and tell them.....don't touch me.....
Go quietly and call a lawyer.....

Just like a cop performing and arrest.....
I expect your full cooperation.
Any resistance will be dealt with.

 

[gnomon]

Are people still talking about this issue?

Jonathan Ayers was gunned down in a gas station by non-uniformed police officers in a drug task force and what? Nothing.

No protests.

Than that same task force sent an infant into a coma after a botched drug raid.

Protests?

No.

However some people believe that two cases of either an extremely aggressive black male shot in self defense or that of a repeat offender taken out by one inept police officer speaks volumes about our society.

Speaks volumes only on themselves.

Basically their own self indulgent stupidity.

And that goes to the OP of this thread.

Just close this useless **** already.

There is no education to be had here.

 

[Thief]

Except a more cautious response when getting arrested....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

OK. So let's start over.

John Doe is stopped and questioned by the police.
The cop then tells John "Turn around you are under arrest for (fill in the blank with whatever crime)."
John Doe says "No! First show me what evidence you have!"
The cop shows him.
At that moment who determines the validity and admissibility the evidence? How do they go about that?
It's just John Doe and the cop standing there. The crime itself and if John Doe actually did it or not is irrelevant. Who determines the admissibility of the evidence?

Your scenario assumes evidence was produced. This isn't the case with Garner. A lie was produced and challenged. After the lie was exposed that's when the officers, who seemingly lost control over the lie, began their attack.

 

[McBell]

Your scenario assumes evidence was produced. This isn't the case with Garner. A lie was produced and challenged. After the lie was exposed that's when the officers, who seemingly lost control over the lie, began their attack.

how is this anything but speculation?

 

[Thief]

Your scenario assumes evidence was produced. This isn't the case with Garner. A lie was produced and challenged. After the lie was exposed that's when the officers, who seemingly lost control over the lie, began their attack.

Your scenario seems produced.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

how is this anything but speculation?

What is not speculation though is that, as far as official documents go, there is nothing more than "I saw you sell cigarettes to a man in a red shirt" that has been produced. Nothing has been produced to show Garner's guilt. The situation the police put Garner into was one in which he would have had to prove his innocence, which is not how our system is supposed to work.

 

[Thief]

What is not speculation though is that, as far as official documents go, there is nothing more than "I saw you sell cigarettes to a man in a red shirt" that has been produced. Nothing has been produced to show Garner's guilt. The situation the police put Garner into was one in which he would have had to prove his innocence, which is not how our system is supposed to work.

You don't prove your innocence in the street.
You go to jail....get booked....get a lawyer.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You don't prove your innocence in the street.

That isn't how it's supposed to work. Our system is one defined, not by the accused having to prove their innocence, but rather the state having to prove beyond any reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. The arresting officers have not proven beyond their own word that Garner was guilty of a crime.

 

[Thief]

That isn't how it's supposed to work. Our system is one defined, not by the accused having to prove their innocence, but rather the state having to prove beyond any reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. The arresting officers have not proven beyond their own word that Garner was guilty of a crime.

and the arresting officer is not required to prove you're guilty.
That is for the prosecuting attorney to do.

You will need a lawyer.
Call one after the arrest.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

and the arresting officer is not required to prove you're guilty.
That is for the prosecuting attorney to do.

You will need a lawyer.
Call one after the arrest.

Law enforcement must show evidence of a crime committed or to subdue any citizen who is an immediate threat to justify taking a citizen into custody.

I didn't see evidence, nor any incriminating statements, nor any threat by Garner to justify the LEO's present to take him into custody.