Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
No problem. Call a cop.
Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
No problem. Call a cop.
On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 9:38:37 PM UTC-8, paulpo...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
No problem. Call a cop.
But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?
On 12/28/2022 9:52 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 9:38:37 PM UTC-8, paulpo...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
No problem. Call a cop.
But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?risky says just shoot em ... what would you do?
Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
No problem. Call a cop.
But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?
On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 9:38:37 PM UTC-8, paulpo...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
No problem. Call a cop.
But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?
On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 8:02:34 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/28/2022 9:52 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 9:38:37 PM UTC-8, paulpo...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
No problem. Call a cop.
But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?risky says just shoot em ... what would you do?
Michael
On 12/28/2022 9:52 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 9:38:37 PM UTC-8, paulpo...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
No problem. Call a cop.
But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 11:56:10 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:threat of serious bodily harm to law enforcement officers or the public). Once the limit of objective reasonableness is met (and no significant and imminent threat of serious bodily harm is present) he or she should just let the suspect escape. No biggie.
On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 7:52:19 AM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:
On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 9:38:37 PM UTC-8, paulpo...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
No problem. Call a cop.
~ The cop should use a continuum of escalating force that meets the legal test of objective reasonableness, up to but not including deadly force (unless the cop has probable cause to reasonably believe the suspect poses a significant and imminentBut what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?
There's zero chance that your IQ is not lower than that of anyone else who posts here.
Right .. no biggie. Every criminal in town is going to be back the next night for their free TV. Jesus, what a stupid shit.
On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 7:52:19 AM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:
On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 9:38:37 PM UTC-8, paulpo...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
No problem. Call a cop.
But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?
On December 28, VegasJerry wrote:.
Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
No problem. Call a cop.
But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?
Put him in a jail without electricity.
Or phone service. Then let him try to call
his bail bondsman or lawyer -
What did arrestees do, in the days before telephones?
(we might ask, how did humans survive for 100000 years without electricity, but that's another ball of thread)
--
Rich
On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 7:52:19 AM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 9:38:37 PM UTC-8, paulpo...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
No problem. Call a cop.
But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?
The cop should use a continuum of escalating force that meets the legal test of objective.
reasonableness, up to but not including deadly force
(unless the cop has probable cause to reasonably believe the suspect poses a significant and imminent threat of serious bodily harm to law enforcement officers or the public). Once the limit of objective reasonableness is met (and no significant andimminent threat of serious bodily harm is present) he or she should just let the suspect escape. No biggie...it's only a TV, right?
On December 28, VegasJerry wrote:
Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
No problem. Call a cop.
But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?Put him in a jail without electricity. Or phone service. Then let him try to call
his bail bondsman or lawyer -
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 11:17:42 AM UTC-8, RichD wrote:
On December 28, VegasJerry wrote:
Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
No problem. Call a cop.
But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?Put him in a jail without electricity. Or phone service. Then let him try to call
his bail bondsman or lawyer -
Michael
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 12:17:07 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:threat of serious bodily harm to law enforcement officers or the public). Once the limit of objective reasonableness is met (and no significant and imminent threat of serious bodily harm is present) he or she should just let the suspect escape. No biggie.
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 11:56:10 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 7:52:19 AM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:
On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 9:38:37 PM UTC-8, paulpo...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
No problem. Call a cop.
~ The cop should use a continuum of escalating force that meets the legal test of objective reasonableness, up to but not including deadly force (unless the cop has probable cause to reasonably believe the suspect poses a significant and imminentBut what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?
There's zero chance that your IQ is not lower than that of anyone else who posts here.
Right .. no biggie. Every criminal in town is going to be back the next night for their free TV. Jesus, what a stupid shit.
Yes, they placed the value of a human life above the value of a TV, or even a whole rack of them. Hell, even a whole truckload of them! Crazy bastards, eh? We already know know that you place the value of a black man's life at something less than $20.That must be your self-proclaimed high IQ operating at a level that few of us normal people can understand.
~ I simply restated US law. Now that you know that's the law, I guess you must think the Supreme Court justices who made it had IQs lower than anyone else who posts here?
Which wouldn't apply once martial law is declared. You must have a brain the size of a peanut. Do you never tire of making a fool of yourself?
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 6:18:25 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
~ I simply restated US law. Now that you know that's the law, I guess you must think the Supreme Court justices who made it had IQs lower than anyone else who posts here?
Which wouldn't apply once martial law is declared. You must have a brain the size of a peanut. Do you never tire of making a fool of yourself?
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:07:30 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 6:18:25 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
~ I simply restated US law. Now that you know that's the law, I guess you must think the Supreme Court justices who made it had IQs lower than anyone else who posts here?
~ Let's *start* with the fact that martial law was not declared in BuffaloWhich wouldn't apply once martial law is declared. You must have a brain the size of a peanut. Do you never tire of making a fool of yourself?
This is exactly why, with asshole retards like you making municipal decisions, every criminal in town will be back the next night to get their free television and murder and rob to their heart's content. Because for you, criminals are far moresympathetic than honest citizens.
~ therefore not relevant to Jerry's question. Your response is not consistent with your self-declared high IQ. If this were a law school exam question you would get an "F". Always avoid making irrelevant comments like the plague. They are a sure signyou are flailing and don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
It's 100% relevant regardless of the obvious fact that you are too slow-witted to stay out of your own way.cities are recognized as shitholes to avoid.
If municipal authorities are too irresponsible to declare martial law they deserve what they get. Any business owner needs to ask himself why he is located in a jurisdiction that chooses to not enforce the law. And that is exactly why large, 'liberal'
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 2:40:01 PM UTC-8, Splashie wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 11:17:42 AM UTC-8, RichD wrote:
On December 28, VegasJerry wrote:
Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
No problem. Call a cop.
~ Why do you hate the Constitution?But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?Put him in a jail without electricity. Or phone service. Then let him try to call
his bail bondsman or lawyer -
Michael
Does the U.S. Constitution specify that incarcerated criminals be provided electricity and telephone service? Or are you just as much of a blabbermouth as the Canadian blabbermouth?
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 6:22:15 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 2:40:01 PM UTC-8, Splashie wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 11:17:42 AM UTC-8, RichD wrote:
On December 28, VegasJerry wrote:
Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
No problem. Call a cop.
~ Why do you hate the Constitution?But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?Put him in a jail without electricity. Or phone service. Then let him try to call
his bail bondsman or lawyer -
Michael
an obviously unconstitutional deprivation of due process.Does the U.S. Constitution specify that incarcerated criminals be provided electricity and telephone service? Or are you just as much of a blabbermouth as the Canadian blabbermouth?It specifies that they have the right to an attorney, a speedy and public trial, and prohibits cruel and unusual punishment including excessive bail. Attempting to deprive inmates the right to contact a bail bondsman or attorney through normal means is
Michael.
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:23:57 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:07:30 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 6:18:25 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
~ I simply restated US law. Now that you know that's the law, I guess you must think the Supreme Court justices who made it had IQs lower than anyone else who posts here?
~ Let's *start* with the fact that martial law was not declared in BuffaloWhich wouldn't apply once martial law is declared. You must have a brain the size of a peanut. Do you never tire of making a fool of yourself?
sympathetic than honest citizens.This is exactly why, with asshole retards like you making municipal decisions, every criminal in town will be back the next night to get their free television and murder and rob to their heart's content. Because for you, criminals are far more
you are flailing and don't know what the fuck you are talking about.~ therefore not relevant to Jerry's question. Your response is not consistent with your self-declared high IQ. If this were a law school exam question you would get an "F". Always avoid making irrelevant comments like the plague. They are a sure sign
cities are recognized as shitholes to avoid.It's 100% relevant regardless of the obvious fact that you are too slow-witted to stay out of your own way.
If municipal authorities are too irresponsible to declare martial law they deserve what they get. Any business owner needs to ask himself why he is located in a jurisdiction that chooses to not enforce the law. And that is exactly why large, 'liberal'
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 6:22:15 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 2:40:01 PM UTC-8, Splashie wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 11:17:42 AM UTC-8, RichD wrote:
On December 28, VegasJerry wrote:
Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
No problem. Call a cop.
~ Why do you hate the Constitution?But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?Put him in a jail without electricity. Or phone service. Then let him try to call
his bail bondsman or lawyer -
Michael
Does the U.S. Constitution specify that incarcerated criminals be provided electricity and telephone service? Or are you just as much of a blabbermouth as the Canadian blabbermouth?
Michael
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:33:46 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:23:57 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:07:30 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 6:18:25 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
~ I simply restated US law. Now that you know that's the law, I guess you must think the Supreme Court justices who made it had IQs lower than anyone else who posts here?
~ Let's *start* with the fact that martial law was not declared in BuffaloWhich wouldn't apply once martial law is declared. You must have a brain the size of a peanut. Do you never tire of making a fool of yourself?
sympathetic than honest citizens.This is exactly why, with asshole retards like you making municipal decisions, every criminal in town will be back the next night to get their free television and murder and rob to their heart's content. Because for you, criminals are far more
sign you are flailing and don't know what the fuck you are talking about.~ therefore not relevant to Jerry's question. Your response is not consistent with your self-declared high IQ. If this were a law school exam question you would get an "F". Always avoid making irrelevant comments like the plague. They are a sure
liberal' cities are recognized as shitholes to avoid.It's 100% relevant regardless of the obvious fact that you are too slow-witted to stay out of your own way.
If municipal authorities are too irresponsible to declare martial law they deserve what they get. Any business owner needs to ask himself why he is located in a jurisdiction that chooses to not enforce the law. And that is exactly why large, '
~ Jerry asked what a cop should do if he encountered a black looter during the Buffalo snowstorm and he or she resisted arrest. Martial law was not declared during the Buffalo snowstorm (and it would have been ridiculous if it was), therefore yourcomment about martial law was irrelevant (and simultaneously ridiculous). Your failure to understand the concept of irrelevance is not consistent with your self-declared high IQ.
Look, it's quite obvious that you're feeling pretty stupid for blabbing as you did that police, as a policy, should allow criminals to get away with looting. You >recognized that course of action would only encourage more looting when I MADE you thinkof it. Your tongue obviously weighs more than your brain.
And now you're straining mightily to convince someone that it's forbidden to discuss martial law in the context of looting because someone else didn't use the words 'martial law' in their comment? Do you not think this is recognized as your typicalpatented diversion from your original stupidity?
~ By the way, since when do municipal authorities have the authority to declare martial law? That's news to me.
Then you obviously know very little about the common law. And that is not a surprise.
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 5:14:03 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:33:46 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:23:57 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:07:30 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 6:18:25 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
~ I simply restated US law. Now that you know that's the law, I guess you must think the Supreme Court justices who made it had IQs lower than anyone else who posts here?
~ Let's *start* with the fact that martial law was not declared in BuffaloWhich wouldn't apply once martial law is declared. You must have a brain the size of a peanut. Do you never tire of making a fool of yourself?
sympathetic than honest citizens.This is exactly why, with asshole retards like you making municipal decisions, every criminal in town will be back the next night to get their free television and murder and rob to their heart's content. Because for you, criminals are far more
sign you are flailing and don't know what the fuck you are talking about.~ therefore not relevant to Jerry's question. Your response is not consistent with your self-declared high IQ. If this were a law school exam question you would get an "F". Always avoid making irrelevant comments like the plague. They are a sure
liberal' cities are recognized as shitholes to avoid.It's 100% relevant regardless of the obvious fact that you are too slow-witted to stay out of your own way.
If municipal authorities are too irresponsible to declare martial law they deserve what they get. Any business owner needs to ask himself why he is located in a jurisdiction that chooses to not enforce the law. And that is exactly why large, '
comment about martial law was irrelevant (and simultaneously ridiculous). Your failure to understand the concept of irrelevance is not consistent with your self-declared high IQ.~ Jerry asked what a cop should do if he encountered a black looter during the Buffalo snowstorm and he or she resisted arrest. Martial law was not declared during the Buffalo snowstorm (and it would have been ridiculous if it was), therefore your
think of it. Your tongue obviously weighs more than your brain.Look, it's quite obvious that you're feeling pretty stupid for blabbing as you did that police, as a policy, should allow criminals to get away with looting. You >recognized that course of action would only encourage more looting when I MADE you
I did not say anything about "police policy." I summarized the constitutional law of the United States with respect to the use of lethal force by law enforcement. Do you understand that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of theUnited States and that it far outranks "police policy?" It appears you do not.
patented diversion from your original stupidity?And now you're straining mightily to convince someone that it's forbidden to discuss martial law in the context of looting because someone else didn't use the words 'martial law' in their comment? Do you not think this is recognized as your typical
Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.Jerry: But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?
No problem. Call a cop.
And the idea that New York would declare martial law because a few stores were broken into during a snowstorm is well beyond moronic, even for you.
~ By the way, since when do municipal authorities have the authority to declare martial law? That's news to me.
Then you obviously know very little about the common law. And that is not a surprise.
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 7:06:55 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 5:14:03 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:33:46 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:23:57 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:07:30 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 6:18:25 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
~ I simply restated US law. Now that you know that's the law, I guess you must think the Supreme Court justices who made it had IQs lower than anyone else who posts here?
~ Let's *start* with the fact that martial law was not declared in BuffaloWhich wouldn't apply once martial law is declared. You must have a brain the size of a peanut. Do you never tire of making a fool of yourself?
sympathetic than honest citizens.This is exactly why, with asshole retards like you making municipal decisions, every criminal in town will be back the next night to get their free television and murder and rob to their heart's content. Because for you, criminals are far more
sure sign you are flailing and don't know what the fuck you are talking about.~ therefore not relevant to Jerry's question. Your response is not consistent with your self-declared high IQ. If this were a law school exam question you would get an "F". Always avoid making irrelevant comments like the plague. They are a
liberal' cities are recognized as shitholes to avoid.It's 100% relevant regardless of the obvious fact that you are too slow-witted to stay out of your own way.
If municipal authorities are too irresponsible to declare martial law they deserve what they get. Any business owner needs to ask himself why he is located in a jurisdiction that chooses to not enforce the law. And that is exactly why large, '
comment about martial law was irrelevant (and simultaneously ridiculous). Your failure to understand the concept of irrelevance is not consistent with your self-declared high IQ.~ Jerry asked what a cop should do if he encountered a black looter during the Buffalo snowstorm and he or she resisted arrest. Martial law was not declared during the Buffalo snowstorm (and it would have been ridiculous if it was), therefore your
think of it. Your tongue obviously weighs more than your brain.Look, it's quite obvious that you're feeling pretty stupid for blabbing as you did that police, as a policy, should allow criminals to get away with looting. You >recognized that course of action would only encourage more looting when I MADE you
United States and that it far outranks "police policy?" It appears you do not.I did not say anything about "police policy." I summarized the constitutional law of the United States with respect to the use of lethal force by law enforcement. Do you understand that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the
patented diversion from your original stupidity?And now you're straining mightily to convince someone that it's forbidden to discuss martial law in the context of looting because someone else didn't use the words 'martial law' in their comment? Do you not think this is recognized as your typical
~ You jumped in like the comical fool you are and said the answer I provided to Jerry's question, which was well established constitutional law with respect to lethal force by law enforcement, showed "there's zero chance that your IQ is not lower thanthat of anyone else who posts here." Martial law was not part of the fact scenario behind Jerry's question, therefore it is irrelevant to his question. The fact that you STILL can't see that is a reflection of your low IQ.
Here's the synopsis of the conversation:
~ On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 9:38:37 PM UTC-8, paulpo...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
No problem. Call a cop.Jerry: But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?
Blabbermouth: .. he or she should just let the suspect escape.
Me: Every criminal in town is going to be back the next night for their free TV. Jesus, what a stupid shit.
Blabbermouth: I simply restated US law.
Me: Which wouldn't apply once martial law is declared.
It's so sad for you that looting and martial law can be mentioned in the same conversation, isn't it? LOL.
And the idea that New York would declare martial law because a few stores were broken into during a snowstorm is well beyond moronic, even for you.
~ By the way, since when do municipal authorities have the authority to declare martial law? That's news to me.
a high IQ. That said, having a JD doesn't mean I know everything. So show me and this group the common law decision(s) that support your contention that "municipal authorities" have the authority to declare martial law. I am confident in saying no such~ I have a Juris Doctor from a common law jurisdiction and I have been studying Canadian and US comparative law for over 30 years. The fact that you think you know more about common law than I do is entirely consistent with your delusion that you haveThen you obviously know very little about the common law. And that is not a surprise.
Martial law has been declared numerous times in the U.S.A. Was it all done illegally? You are quite dense. That ulimately derives from the common law dating back to ninth century England:designee like an officer of the peace potentially accompanied by or with the direction of a justice or ajudged parajudicial process given imminence of actual damage – to suppress lawlessness, defend the people, or otherwise protect the place, property,
'The posse comitatus (from the Latin for "power of the county/community/guard"), frequently shortened to posse, is in common law a group of people mobilized by the conservator of peace – typically a reeve, sheriff, chief, or another special/regional
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_comitatusnot constrained by the Posse Comitatus Act.
In dual sovereignty America, if a local authority's ability to provide the governance and security listed above is inadequate a request is made to the state's governor to declare martial law and employ the National Guard to enforce it and that power is
The simple fact of the matter is that you do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about which is par for the course.from a rooftop as you?
I could, BTW, inform you of the interesting manner in which National Guard troops are pre-positioned to carry out such operations but why bother trying too educate someone as miserably immune to learning and so compulsively committed to shouting it
On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 2:05:28 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 7:06:55 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 5:14:03 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:33:46 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:23:57 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:07:30 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 6:18:25 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
~ I simply restated US law. Now that you know that's the law, I guess you must think the Supreme Court justices who made it had IQs lower than anyone else who posts here?
~ Let's *start* with the fact that martial law was not declared in BuffaloWhich wouldn't apply once martial law is declared. You must have a brain the size of a peanut. Do you never tire of making a fool of yourself?
more sympathetic than honest citizens.This is exactly why, with asshole retards like you making municipal decisions, every criminal in town will be back the next night to get their free television and murder and rob to their heart's content. Because for you, criminals are far
sure sign you are flailing and don't know what the fuck you are talking about.~ therefore not relevant to Jerry's question. Your response is not consistent with your self-declared high IQ. If this were a law school exam question you would get an "F". Always avoid making irrelevant comments like the plague. They are a
liberal' cities are recognized as shitholes to avoid.It's 100% relevant regardless of the obvious fact that you are too slow-witted to stay out of your own way.
If municipal authorities are too irresponsible to declare martial law they deserve what they get. Any business owner needs to ask himself why he is located in a jurisdiction that chooses to not enforce the law. And that is exactly why large, '
your comment about martial law was irrelevant (and simultaneously ridiculous). Your failure to understand the concept of irrelevance is not consistent with your self-declared high IQ.~ Jerry asked what a cop should do if he encountered a black looter during the Buffalo snowstorm and he or she resisted arrest. Martial law was not declared during the Buffalo snowstorm (and it would have been ridiculous if it was), therefore
think of it. Your tongue obviously weighs more than your brain.Look, it's quite obvious that you're feeling pretty stupid for blabbing as you did that police, as a policy, should allow criminals to get away with looting. You >recognized that course of action would only encourage more looting when I MADE you
the United States and that it far outranks "police policy?" It appears you do not.I did not say anything about "police policy." I summarized the constitutional law of the United States with respect to the use of lethal force by law enforcement. Do you understand that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of
typical patented diversion from your original stupidity?And now you're straining mightily to convince someone that it's forbidden to discuss martial law in the context of looting because someone else didn't use the words 'martial law' in their comment? Do you not think this is recognized as your
than that of anyone else who posts here." Martial law was not part of the fact scenario behind Jerry's question, therefore it is irrelevant to his question. The fact that you STILL can't see that is a reflection of your low IQ.~ You jumped in like the comical fool you are and said the answer I provided to Jerry's question, which was well established constitutional law with respect to lethal force by law enforcement, showed "there's zero chance that your IQ is not lower
Here's the synopsis of the conversation:
~ On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 9:38:37 PM UTC-8, paulpo...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
No problem. Call a cop.Jerry: But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?
Blabbermouth: .. he or she should just let the suspect escape.
Me: Every criminal in town is going to be back the next night for their free TV. Jesus, what a stupid shit.
Blabbermouth: I simply restated US law.
Me: Which wouldn't apply once martial law is declared.
It's so sad for you that looting and martial law can be mentioned in the same conversation, isn't it? LOL.
And the idea that New York would declare martial law because a few stores were broken into during a snowstorm is well beyond moronic, even for you.
~ By the way, since when do municipal authorities have the authority to declare martial law? That's news to me.
have a high IQ. That said, having a JD doesn't mean I know everything. So show me and this group the common law decision(s) that support your contention that "municipal authorities" have the authority to declare martial law. I am confident in saying no~ I have a Juris Doctor from a common law jurisdiction and I have been studying Canadian and US comparative law for over 30 years. The fact that you think you know more about common law than I do is entirely consistent with your delusion that youThen you obviously know very little about the common law. And that is not a surprise.
regional designee like an officer of the peace potentially accompanied by or with the direction of a justice or ajudged parajudicial process given imminence of actual damage – to suppress lawlessness, defend the people, or otherwise protect the place,Martial law has been declared numerous times in the U.S.A. Was it all done illegally? You are quite dense. That ulimately derives from the common law dating back to ninth century England:
'The posse comitatus (from the Latin for "power of the county/community/guard"), frequently shortened to posse, is in common law a group of people mobilized by the conservator of peace – typically a reeve, sheriff, chief, or another special/
is not constrained by the Posse Comitatus Act.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_comitatus
In dual sovereignty America, if a local authority's ability to provide the governance and security listed above is inadequate a request is made to the state's governor to declare martial law and employ the National Guard to enforce it and that power
from a rooftop as you?The simple fact of the matter is that you do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about which is par for the course.
I could, BTW, inform you of the interesting manner in which National Guard troops are pre-positioned to carry out such operations but why bother trying too educate someone as miserably immune to learning and so compulsively committed to shouting it
"In dual sovereignty America, if a local authority's ability to provide the governance and security listed above is inadequate a request is made to the state's governor to declare martial law."
Is the state's governor a "municipal authority?"
On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 4:10:29 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 2:05:28 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 7:06:55 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 5:14:03 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:33:46 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:23:57 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:07:30 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 6:18:25 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
~ I simply restated US law. Now that you know that's the law, I guess you must think the Supreme Court justices who made it had IQs lower than anyone else who posts here?
~ Let's *start* with the fact that martial law was not declared in BuffaloWhich wouldn't apply once martial law is declared. You must have a brain the size of a peanut. Do you never tire of making a fool of yourself?
more sympathetic than honest citizens.This is exactly why, with asshole retards like you making municipal decisions, every criminal in town will be back the next night to get their free television and murder and rob to their heart's content. Because for you, criminals are far
sure sign you are flailing and don't know what the fuck you are talking about.~ therefore not relevant to Jerry's question. Your response is not consistent with your self-declared high IQ. If this were a law school exam question you would get an "F". Always avoid making irrelevant comments like the plague. They are a
'liberal' cities are recognized as shitholes to avoid.It's 100% relevant regardless of the obvious fact that you are too slow-witted to stay out of your own way.
If municipal authorities are too irresponsible to declare martial law they deserve what they get. Any business owner needs to ask himself why he is located in a jurisdiction that chooses to not enforce the law. And that is exactly why large,
your comment about martial law was irrelevant (and simultaneously ridiculous). Your failure to understand the concept of irrelevance is not consistent with your self-declared high IQ.~ Jerry asked what a cop should do if he encountered a black looter during the Buffalo snowstorm and he or she resisted arrest. Martial law was not declared during the Buffalo snowstorm (and it would have been ridiculous if it was), therefore
you think of it. Your tongue obviously weighs more than your brain.Look, it's quite obvious that you're feeling pretty stupid for blabbing as you did that police, as a policy, should allow criminals to get away with looting. You >recognized that course of action would only encourage more looting when I MADE
the United States and that it far outranks "police policy?" It appears you do not.I did not say anything about "police policy." I summarized the constitutional law of the United States with respect to the use of lethal force by law enforcement. Do you understand that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of
typical patented diversion from your original stupidity?And now you're straining mightily to convince someone that it's forbidden to discuss martial law in the context of looting because someone else didn't use the words 'martial law' in their comment? Do you not think this is recognized as your
than that of anyone else who posts here." Martial law was not part of the fact scenario behind Jerry's question, therefore it is irrelevant to his question. The fact that you STILL can't see that is a reflection of your low IQ.~ You jumped in like the comical fool you are and said the answer I provided to Jerry's question, which was well established constitutional law with respect to lethal force by law enforcement, showed "there's zero chance that your IQ is not lower
Here's the synopsis of the conversation:
~ On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 9:38:37 PM UTC-8, paulpo...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Looters run free in Buffalo as ice storm takes down grid.
No problem. Call a cop.Jerry: But what if the looter is black and refuses to be arrested? What should the cop do?
Blabbermouth: .. he or she should just let the suspect escape.
Me: Every criminal in town is going to be back the next night for their free TV. Jesus, what a stupid shit.
Blabbermouth: I simply restated US law.
Me: Which wouldn't apply once martial law is declared.
It's so sad for you that looting and martial law can be mentioned in the same conversation, isn't it? LOL.
And the idea that New York would declare martial law because a few stores were broken into during a snowstorm is well beyond moronic, even for you.
~ By the way, since when do municipal authorities have the authority to declare martial law? That's news to me.
have a high IQ. That said, having a JD doesn't mean I know everything. So show me and this group the common law decision(s) that support your contention that "municipal authorities" have the authority to declare martial law. I am confident in saying no~ I have a Juris Doctor from a common law jurisdiction and I have been studying Canadian and US comparative law for over 30 years. The fact that you think you know more about common law than I do is entirely consistent with your delusion that youThen you obviously know very little about the common law. And that is not a surprise.
regional designee like an officer of the peace potentially accompanied by or with the direction of a justice or ajudged parajudicial process given imminence of actual damage – to suppress lawlessness, defend the people, or otherwise protect the place,Martial law has been declared numerous times in the U.S.A. Was it all done illegally? You are quite dense. That ulimately derives from the common law dating back to ninth century England:
'The posse comitatus (from the Latin for "power of the county/community/guard"), frequently shortened to posse, is in common law a group of people mobilized by the conservator of peace – typically a reeve, sheriff, chief, or another special/
power is not constrained by the Posse Comitatus Act.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_comitatus
In dual sovereignty America, if a local authority's ability to provide the governance and security listed above is inadequate a request is made to the state's governor to declare martial law and employ the National Guard to enforce it and that
from a rooftop as you?The simple fact of the matter is that you do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about which is par for the course.
I could, BTW, inform you of the interesting manner in which National Guard troops are pre-positioned to carry out such operations but why bother trying too educate someone as miserably immune to learning and so compulsively committed to shouting it
~ You have the reading comprehension skills of a child.revelation that you, once again, have no idea what you are talking about.
"In dual sovereignty America, if a local authority's ability to provide the governance and security listed above is inadequate a request is made to the state's governor to declare martial law."
Is the state's governor a "municipal authority?"
A municipal authority effectively declares martial law by requesting the state's Governor to do so and call out the National Guard. Surely you aren't too dense to grasp that. No, I think you are just now desperately trying to divert from the obvious
~ So even your own reference proves you wrong, AND you ignored my second question.
No, it doesn't. Martial law is declared when a local authority requests it. A governor does not unilaterally declare martial law without a local authority declaring it >a necessity. You are flailing desperately.
~ What makes you think that even if the STATE'S GOVERNOR (not "municipal authorities") declared martial law, that that somehow extinguishes the public's rights under the Bill of Rights (other than a narrow exceptions as set out in the Constitutionitself). How does the declaration of martial law overrule the 4th Amendment rights of the individual as set out in Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor?
Is this the 'narrow exception' you're referring to? LOL.
Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
~ This is all ignoring the fact that martial law would NEVER be declared for the situation that existed in Buffalo during and after the snowstorm. That is a ridiculous totalitarian fantasy on your part. Martial law is a last resort in emergencysituations when local and state law enforcement is overwhelmed. It's only lawful use is as an extraordinary measure.
You keep trying to ride that like your little hobby horse but I never expressed an opinion one way or the other as to whether martial law should or should not have been declared in Buffalo, N.Y. recently.
~ And the final question remains: Why do you keep returning for more and more humiliation? It is obvious you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. What do you get out of making a fool of yourself? You wouldn't last a week in law school.
Because it's amusing to humiliate your phony, pompous ass? Guilty.process given imminence of actual damage – to suppress lawlessness, defend the people, or otherwise protect the place, property, and public welfare (see also ethical law enforcement (police by consent etc.)). The posse comitatus as an English
'The posse comitatus (from the Latin for "power of the county/community/guard"), frequently shortened to posse, is in
👉common law👈
a group of people mobilized by the conservator of peace – typically a reeve, sheriff, chief, or another special/regional designee like an officer of the peace potentially accompanied by or with the direction of a justice or ajudged parajudicial
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_comitatus
Pardon me for suspecting that YOU didn't last a week in law school.
On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 3:41:57 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
Is this the 'narrow exception' you're referring to? LOL.
Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
~ On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 9:04:05 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:itself). How does the declaration of martial law overrule the 4th Amendment rights of the individual as set out in Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor?
On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 3:41:57 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
~ What makes you think that even if the STATE'S GOVERNOR (not "municipal authorities") declared martial law, that that somehow extinguishes the public's rights under the Bill of Rights (other than a narrow exceptions as set out in the Constitution
Is this the 'narrow exception' you're referring to? LOL.
~ Yes, that was exception I was referring to.Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Explainer: BillBlabbermouth of Vancouver, who has 'been studying Canadian and US comparative law for over 30 years' just discovered Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. The 'narrow exception' you could drive a freight train through.
😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
~ Why did you dodge the question? Because you did some research and now realize you didn't have a clue what you were talking about?
Yeah, right .. ME.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
Habeas Corpus is the right of a detainee or prisoner to have a court determine whether their detention or imprisonment is lawful or unlawful.
Blabbermouth NOW asserts that the latter is a 'narrow exception' to the former.
Please, someone- maybe one of his fellow attorneys, please make your best case that Blabbermouth has not here reduced himself to the state of a turtle that clumsily flipped itself onto it's back and can't right itself.
Wonderful start to a new year of trolling. Phew!
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 2:20:33 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:itself). How does the declaration of martial law overrule the 4th Amendment rights of the individual as set out in Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor?
~ On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 9:04:05 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 3:41:57 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
~ What makes you think that even if the STATE'S GOVERNOR (not "municipal authorities") declared martial law, that that somehow extinguishes the public's rights under the Bill of Rights (other than a narrow exceptions as set out in the Constitution
Is this the 'narrow exception' you're referring to? LOL.
~ Yes, that was exception I was referring to.Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Explainer: BillBlabbermouth of Vancouver, who has 'been studying Canadian and US comparative law for over 30 years' just discovered Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. The 'narrow exception' you could drive a freight train through.
😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
~ Why did you dodge the question? Because you did some research and now realize you didn't have a clue what you were talking about?
Yeah, right .. ME.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
Habeas Corpus is the right of a detainee or prisoner to have a court determine whether their detention or imprisonment is lawful or unlawful.
Blabbermouth NOW asserts that the latter is a 'narrow exception' to the former.
Please, someone- maybe one of his fellow attorneys, please make your best case that Blabbermouth has not here reduced himself to the state of a turtle that clumsily flipped itself onto it's back and can't right itself.
Wonderful start to a new year of trolling. Phew!lol He still doesn't get it.
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:23:32 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:itself). How does the declaration of martial law overrule the 4th Amendment rights of the individual as set out in Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor?
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 2:20:33 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
~ On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 9:04:05 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 3:41:57 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
~ What makes you think that even if the STATE'S GOVERNOR (not "municipal authorities") declared martial law, that that somehow extinguishes the public's rights under the Bill of Rights (other than a narrow exceptions as set out in the Constitution
Is this the 'narrow exception' you're referring to? LOL.
~ Yes, that was exception I was referring to.Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Constitution itself.Explainer: BillBlabbermouth of Vancouver, who has 'been studying Canadian and US comparative law for over 30 years' just discovered Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. The 'narrow exception' you could drive a freight train through.
😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
~ Yes, that is the narrow exception I referred to previously, as it is the only constitutional right that is potentially affected (and only in cases of rebellion or insurrection). That's because, as I also said, it is explicitly dealt with in the
Mm, hmm. An exception to the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, the right of a detainee or prisoner to have a court determine whether their detention or imprisonment is lawful or unlawful, is actually a 'narrow exception' to the Fourth Amendmentto the United States Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
You are flailing horrifically.
~ It does not affect in the slightest a citizen's right not to be unlawfully subjected to lethal force by law enforcement, so you are once again clinging to irrelevancies.
Subsequent to the Great Galveston hurricane, to restore public order, Mayor [M-A-Y-O-R] Walter C. Jones declared martial law. Forty-three civilians tried by court-martial in a military tribunal were convicted, and ordered shot.
Isn't it way past due time for you to just melt away in silence?
All you're accomplishing is further solidification of your reputation as an uneducated jackass who clothes himself in astoundingly florid fantasies: 'I have been >studying Canadian and US comparative law for over 30 years'.
~ Why did you dodge the question? Because you did some research and now realize you didn't have a clue what you were talking about?
Yeah, right .. ME.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
Habeas Corpus is the right of a detainee or prisoner to have a court determine whether their detention or imprisonment is lawful or unlawful.
Blabbermouth NOW asserts that the latter is a 'narrow exception' to the former.
Please, someone- maybe one of his fellow attorneys, please make your best case that Blabbermouth has not here reduced himself to the state of a turtle that clumsily flipped itself onto it's back and can't right itself.
Wonderful start to a new year of trolling. Phew!lol He still doesn't get it.
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:43:19 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:Constitution itself). How does the declaration of martial law overrule the 4th Amendment rights of the individual as set out in Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor?
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:23:32 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 2:20:33 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
~ On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 9:04:05 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 3:41:57 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
~ What makes you think that even if the STATE'S GOVERNOR (not "municipal authorities") declared martial law, that that somehow extinguishes the public's rights under the Bill of Rights (other than a narrow exceptions as set out in the
Is this the 'narrow exception' you're referring to? LOL.
~ Yes, that was exception I was referring to.Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Constitution itself.Explainer: BillBlabbermouth of Vancouver, who has 'been studying Canadian and US comparative law for over 30 years' just discovered Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. The 'narrow exception' you could drive a freight train through.
😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
~ Yes, that is the narrow exception I referred to previously, as it is the only constitutional right that is potentially affected (and only in cases of rebellion or insurrection). That's because, as I also said, it is explicitly dealt with in the
to the United States Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.Mm, hmm. An exception to the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, the right of a detainee or prisoner to have a court determine whether their detention or imprisonment is lawful or unlawful, is actually a 'narrow exception' to the Fourth Amendment
rights remain intact, including the right not to be subjected to lethal force for stealing. That's what refuted, remember? You have drifted off into irrelevancies again. Your "common law" examples (which aren't common law) from 120 years do not trumpYou are flailing horrifically.No, I am not. As I said in the first place, it is the one narrow exception to a citizen's constitutional rights being curtailed during martial law, only because it is specifically set out specifically in the Constitution. All other constitutional
~ It does not affect in the slightest a citizen's right not to be unlawfully subjected to lethal force by law enforcement, so you are once again clinging to irrelevancies.
Subsequent to the Great Galveston hurricane, to restore public order, Mayor [M-A-Y-O-R] Walter C. Jones declared martial law. Forty-three civilians tried by court-martial in a military tribunal were convicted, and ordered shot.
Isn't it way past due time for you to just melt away in silence?Why? Because you failed sixth grade civics? What you call "common law" from over a century ago does not survive binding Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Constitution in the 1980s. I thought you were a self-proclaimed expert in common law?
All you're accomplishing is further solidification of your reputation as an uneducated jackass who clothes himself in astoundingly florid fantasies: 'I have been >studying Canadian and US comparative law for over 30 years'.You forgot the part about have a Juris Doctor from a common law jurisdiction.
~ Why did you dodge the question? Because you did some research and now realize you didn't have a clue what you were talking about?
Buy polka dot shroom bars, one up mushroom bars and Trippy flip chocolate bars. Polkadot chocolate helps you conquer your day or make it an adventure depending on how you choose to dose. Polka dot magic belgian chocolate bars are not only delicious, but also very powerful. These mushroom chocolates are equivalent to 4 grams ofYeah, right .. ME.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
Habeas Corpus is the right of a detainee or prisoner to have a court determine whether their detention or imprisonment is lawful or unlawful.
Blabbermouth NOW asserts that the latter is a 'narrow exception' to the former.
Please, someone- maybe one of his fellow attorneys, please make your best case that Blabbermouth has not here reduced himself to the state of a turtle that clumsily flipped itself onto it's back and can't right itself.
Wonderful start to a new year of trolling. Phew!lol He still doesn't get it.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 23:46:59 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,352,105 |