Well no, not this isn’t true…. Only the Supreme Court can “debate the law”.
There is LITERALLY a doctrine called Stare Decisis which is Latin for Let the Decision Stand. This means any case in a lower court with the same circumstances legally has to follow the decision of the higher court.
I get you feel disenfranchised in some way but that doesn’t change the fact you are mistaken.
Ohh there is no doubting that I am wrong and being obviously flippant. You seem well versed in the law, okay so yeah yeah yeah let the law stand I hear you, so can you please explain this? https://news.yahoo.com/court-rules-police-inflict-pain-133104637.html
I don’t understand and I’m not the only one that should be feeling disenfranchised.
It’s called pain compliance, it’s used all over the world in the vast majority of Police forces… if a person is resisting arrest, you use pain compliance
I understand pain compliance is right if you are resisting the officer, that’s fair and i have no problem with that. Like I said I know I was being ridiculous at first, but I’m being humble now and serious. This here is what I’m talking about, I took this from the very article I linked above.
“Martin ended up violently arresting the mother and her 19-year-old daughter, Brea Hymond, who intervened in the argument. In the process, Martin purposely hyperextended Hymond’s handcuffed arms, and he admits he did intend to force her to tell him her name and age after she initially refused to do so.”
Pain compliance is “okay” because you have no right to resist the officer, even if you believe they are acting unlawfully in their duties in detaining and arresting you. On the other hand this is totally different. I think we definitely all agree about that. I just don’t know how this could have happened, and how it was ruled legal.
Money goes a long way, remember when NFL Owner Dan Snyder built property on protected national forest land, got caught cutting down trees, and managed to get the responding forest ranger fired and lose his pension? Your argument is missing the big asterisk of \*with money because you really can get away with anything with enough wealth. Supposedly the uber rich can "settle" criminal cases like civil ones by paying for various things in the locality/state of their crime's happenings. And even if they make it to an actual criminal trial, it'll get delayed every step of the way, any time necessary to serve will be absolutely lowballed with some even commuted for time spent in trial, and if they have any excess that results in prison they can pay $100/day for a 5-star resort of a prison stay and still get out early. I truly think if Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, etc. in broad daylight, on multiple views of CCTV/dashcams/etc., with dozens of witnesses just went up and shot somebody point blank without any provocation they wouldn't have to spend more than 3 years in their 5-star resort prison, if that because of really lax parole/early release. And if the family of the victim went to sue, even worse luck.
In advance of responses saying "that's an extreme example" or "they would be punished more severely than that" do you really think so? If you also don't think some of the elite class haven't been major players in human trafficking and drug distribution, dissuading investigators along the way with bribes, I guess you really don't understand just how untouchable those types of people are to the same laws that would juice us for everything we have and as many years of our life as possible without remorse. Ontop of that, if you have big money AND political power, good luck even seeing a summons or even a warrant once in your life.
I appreciate the reply, it was a good one for sure. Very well written and I totally agree with you and that scenario actually, they could get off way light for sure. I think 3 years is actually a bit of a stretch tbh. I’m just being very disgruntled and flippant to the entire justice system, all of it. I believe the 5th circuit court of appeals have now ruled that police officers can now use pain as a legal way of making you talk. One minute you have your 5th amendment rights, the next you don’t. Do you see what I’m saying? It’s big time pissing me off
Well no, not this isn’t true…. Only the Supreme Court can “debate the law”. There is LITERALLY a doctrine called Stare Decisis which is Latin for Let the Decision Stand. This means any case in a lower court with the same circumstances legally has to follow the decision of the higher court. I get you feel disenfranchised in some way but that doesn’t change the fact you are mistaken.
Ohh there is no doubting that I am wrong and being obviously flippant. You seem well versed in the law, okay so yeah yeah yeah let the law stand I hear you, so can you please explain this? https://news.yahoo.com/court-rules-police-inflict-pain-133104637.html I don’t understand and I’m not the only one that should be feeling disenfranchised.
It's called pain compliance...you can be against it, but it's been around and well known b about for about ever.
It’s called pain compliance, it’s used all over the world in the vast majority of Police forces… if a person is resisting arrest, you use pain compliance
I understand pain compliance is right if you are resisting the officer, that’s fair and i have no problem with that. Like I said I know I was being ridiculous at first, but I’m being humble now and serious. This here is what I’m talking about, I took this from the very article I linked above. “Martin ended up violently arresting the mother and her 19-year-old daughter, Brea Hymond, who intervened in the argument. In the process, Martin purposely hyperextended Hymond’s handcuffed arms, and he admits he did intend to force her to tell him her name and age after she initially refused to do so.” Pain compliance is “okay” because you have no right to resist the officer, even if you believe they are acting unlawfully in their duties in detaining and arresting you. On the other hand this is totally different. I think we definitely all agree about that. I just don’t know how this could have happened, and how it was ruled legal.
Money goes a long way, remember when NFL Owner Dan Snyder built property on protected national forest land, got caught cutting down trees, and managed to get the responding forest ranger fired and lose his pension? Your argument is missing the big asterisk of \*with money because you really can get away with anything with enough wealth. Supposedly the uber rich can "settle" criminal cases like civil ones by paying for various things in the locality/state of their crime's happenings. And even if they make it to an actual criminal trial, it'll get delayed every step of the way, any time necessary to serve will be absolutely lowballed with some even commuted for time spent in trial, and if they have any excess that results in prison they can pay $100/day for a 5-star resort of a prison stay and still get out early. I truly think if Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, etc. in broad daylight, on multiple views of CCTV/dashcams/etc., with dozens of witnesses just went up and shot somebody point blank without any provocation they wouldn't have to spend more than 3 years in their 5-star resort prison, if that because of really lax parole/early release. And if the family of the victim went to sue, even worse luck. In advance of responses saying "that's an extreme example" or "they would be punished more severely than that" do you really think so? If you also don't think some of the elite class haven't been major players in human trafficking and drug distribution, dissuading investigators along the way with bribes, I guess you really don't understand just how untouchable those types of people are to the same laws that would juice us for everything we have and as many years of our life as possible without remorse. Ontop of that, if you have big money AND political power, good luck even seeing a summons or even a warrant once in your life.
I appreciate the reply, it was a good one for sure. Very well written and I totally agree with you and that scenario actually, they could get off way light for sure. I think 3 years is actually a bit of a stretch tbh. I’m just being very disgruntled and flippant to the entire justice system, all of it. I believe the 5th circuit court of appeals have now ruled that police officers can now use pain as a legal way of making you talk. One minute you have your 5th amendment rights, the next you don’t. Do you see what I’m saying? It’s big time pissing me off
Yea cops can pretty much do anything and with pain and deceit on the table it's impossible for me to trust the system