| operations |
| comment | | "parent_author":"",<br>"parent_permlink":"politics",<br>"author":"marsresident",<br>"permlink":"armed-protests-against-police-violence",<br>"title":"Armed Protests Against Police Violence",<br>"body":"<html>\n<p>These Police shootings are getting out of hand. This needs to get more serious.<\/p>\n<p><br><\/p>\n<p>First,<br> Protestors need to start carrying Shotguns and Rifles,<br> and at the very least there should be a group or various groups that travel around the country to bear arms at protests. You can openly carry,<br> non-threateningly,<br> a long arm (Rifle or Shotgun) in most states.<\/p>\n<p><br><\/p>\n<p>http:\/\/www.blackpast.org\/files\/blackpast_images\/aa_black_panthers_wa.jpg<\/p>\n<p><br><\/p>\n<p>https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=XnCaO2ErCFQ<\/p>\n<p><br><\/p>\n<p>States that Prohibit Open Carrying of Long Guns:<\/p>\n<p>California<\/p>\n<p>District of Columbia<\/p>\n<p>Florida<\/p>\n<p>Illinois<\/p>\n<p>Massachusetts<\/p>\n<p>Minnesota<\/p>\n<p>New Jersey<\/p>\n<p><br><\/p>\n<p>States that Restrict,<br> But Do Not Prohibit,<br> the Open Carrying of Long Guns:<\/p>\n<p>Iowa<\/p>\n<p>Michigan<\/p>\n<p>Pennsylvania<\/p>\n<p>Tennessee<\/p>\n<p>Utah<\/p>\n<p>Virginia<\/p>\n<p><br><\/p>\n<p>If anyone wants to transport a shotgun or rifle between states to bear arms in protest,<br> there is the Firearm Owner's Protection Act (18 U.S. Code \u00a7 926A - Interstate transportation of firearms). You can transport a Shotgun or Rifle in your trunk or in a locked box,<br> unloaded,<br> out of reach if you have no trunk. And you can ignore any laws of any jurisdictions you pass through as long as you do that. Just make sure the place you are going allows open carry of long arms.<\/p>\n<p><br><\/p>\n<p>https:\/\/i.ytimg.com\/vi\/WYGiaR5Bidw\/maxresdefault.jpg<\/p>\n<p><br><\/p>\n<p>https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=Ffmg6i0lv_k<\/p>\n<p><br><\/p>\n<p>Now,<br> some laws against Police shooting people.<\/p>\n<p><br><\/p>\n<p>To start off,<br> there is the Eric Courtney Harris case. Where the Officer said he meant to use his taser and accidentally used his gun. This is good precedent for any case involving an Officer who shoots an unarmed person,<br> no matter how much danger they feel they are in from that unarmed person. This case should be brought up in all unarmed police shootings,<br> simply so that it can become a regular part of case law (as well as provide any case law that it contains) and be expanded on.<\/p>\n<p><br><\/p>\n<p>The 4th Amendment gives individuals the right to be \"Secure in their Persons\"<\/p>\n<p>United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975)<\/p>\n<p>\"Whenever an officer restrains the freedom of a person to walk away,<br> he has seized that person.\"<\/p>\n<p><br><\/p>\n<p><br><\/p>\n<p>These are the main 2 cases that Police will use in their defense:<\/p>\n<p>Tennessee v. Garner (1985)<\/p>\n<p>\"the use of force on a fleeing suspect has to be based on probable cause that they pose a threat\"<\/p>\n<p>\"the killing of a fleeing suspect is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment,<br> and is therefore constitutional only if reasonable.\"<\/p>\n<p>\"one of the factors is the extent of the intrusion,<br> it is plain that reasonableness depends on not only when a seizure is made,<br> but also how it is carried out\" see,<br> e.g.,<br>United States v. Ortiz (1975); Terry v. Ohio (1968)<\/p>\n<p>\"Almost all crimes formerly punishable by death no longer are or can be.\" See,<br> e.g.,<br> Enmund v. Florida (1982); Coker v. Georgia (1977)<\/p>\n<p>\"And while in earlier times \"the gulf between the felonies and the minor offences was broad and deep,<br>\" 2 Pollock & Maitland 467,<br> n. 3; Carroll v. United States,<br> supra,<br> at 158,<br> today the distinction is minor,<br> and often arbitrary. Many crimes classified as misdemeanors,<br> or nonexistent,<br> at common law are now felonies. Wilgus,<br> 22 Mich.L.Rev. at 572-573. These changes have undermined the concept,<br> which was questionable to begin with,<br> that use of deadly force against a fleeing felon is merely a speedier execution of someone who has already forfeited his life. They have also made the assumption that a \"felon\" is more dangerous than a misdemeanant untenable.\"<\/p>\n<p>\"It forbids the use of deadly force to apprehend a misdemeanant,<br> condemning such action as disproportionately severe. See Holloway v. Moser,<br> 193 N.C.,<br> at 187,<br> 136 S.E. at 376; State v. Smith,<br> 127 Iowa at 535,<br> 103 N.W. at 945. See generally Annot.,<br> 83 A.L.R. 3d 238 (1978).\"<\/p>\n<p>\"The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the New York City Police Department,<br> for example,<br> both forbid the use of firearms except when necessary to prevent death or grievous bodily harm. Id. at 40-41; App. 83. For accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies,<br> a department must restrict the use of deadly force to situations where \"the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life . . . or in defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury.\"\"<\/p>\n<p><br><\/p>\n<p>Graham v. Connor (1989)<\/p>\n<p>\"The reasonableness of a particular force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene,<br> rather than with the 20\/20 vision of hindsight\"<\/p>\n<p>\"quite apart from any 'specific' of the Bill of Rights,<br> application of undue force by law enforcement officers deprives a suspect of liberty without due process of law.\"<\/p>\n<p>\"Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures of the person,<br> holding that the \"reasonableness\" of a particular seizure depends not only on when it is made,<br> but also on how it is carried out.\"<\/p>\n<p>an officer's good intentions do not make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional. See Scott v. United States,<br> citing United States v. Robinson (1973).<\/p>\n<p>\"A \"seizure\" triggering the Fourth Amendment's protections occurs only when government actors have,<br> \"by means of physical force or show of authority,<br> . . . in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen,<br>\" Terry v. Ohio (1968); see Brower v. County of Inyo (1989).<\/p>\n<p>\"an Eighth Amendment violation requires proof of the \"unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.\"'\" quoting Ingraham v. Wright,<br> in turn quoting Estelle v. Gamble (1976).<\/p>\n<p>\"in assessing the credibility of an officer's account of the circumstances that prompted the use of force,<br> a factfinder may consider,<br> along with other factors,<br> evidence that the officer may have harbored ill-will toward the citizen.\" See Scott v. United States (1978)<\/p>\n<\/html>",<br>"json_metadata":" \"tags\":[\"politics\",<br>\"law\",<br>\"police\",<br>\"government\" ,<br>\"image\":[\"http:\/\/www.blackpast.org\/files\/blackpast_images\/aa_black_panthers_wa.jpg\",<br>\"https:\/\/img.youtube.com\/vi\/XnCaO2ErCFQ\/0.jpg\",<br>\"https:\/\/i.ytimg.com\/vi\/WYGiaR5Bidw\/maxresdefault.jpg\",<br>\"https:\/\/img.youtube.com\/vi\/Ffmg6i0lv_k\/0.jpg\" ,<br>\"links\":[\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=XnCaO2ErCFQ\",<br>\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=Ffmg6i0lv_k\" " | | vote | "voter":"marsresident",
"author":"marsresident",
"permlink":"armed-protests-against-police-violence",
"weight":10000 |
|