Posted on 03/17/2016 7:02:55 AM PDT by Enlightened1
Yes a little pop in the mouth can be a really good attitude adjuster. Its not like the guy pulled out a gun and shot him in the head. That I would not have condoned. :-)
You stated 3 different actions.
1) disrupting a private event is tresspass and as such, that is why the protester was being removed under police custody.
2) no one has said that wrestling with cops is NOT resisting arrest. So I’m not sure why you mentioned that.
3) flipping a bird ... no it is NOT insighting a riot. In fact, it is first amendment protected free speech.
“He clearly committed battery against that BLM idiot”
Uh yeh its called Rally Justice. LOL!
still not an excuse for assault and battery
No, I wouldn’t have condoned that either. I’m glad ‘Pops’ took out a thug. White Old Men Matter too!
I wonder if there is a police union in this Sheriff’s office? The mass punishment and demotions should generate some push back.
People had a lot better manners when dueling was the order of the day.
There used to be such a thing as “fighting words” and “fighting gestures” that would legally justify hitting someone that cursed you, or flipped you off, insulted your family. It is not politically correct to fist fight any more so most have forgotten but that man was old enough to remember when it was justified to punch people for things like that.
I would think it can be argued that flipping a bird” constituted “fighting words” and is NOT protected by the First Amendment. That being said, striking someone for doing so would also likely NOT be seen as a justifiable act. On the other hand, the totality of the protester’s actions might be portrayed as threatening and violent to such a degree that a “reasonable man” feared for his safety. Unlikely, but possible.
Wonder how many BLM thugs playing the knockout crap have been arrested? Can’t generate sympathy for any thug.
Hardly possible to represent a person IN CUSTODY as being threatening. Of course, it is possible that his lawyer might try to use that as justification, but still.
Here’s the definition of California penal code sec. 415
aka disturbing the peace.
415. Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment
in the county jail for a period of not more than 90 days, a fine of
not more than four hundred dollars ($400), or both such imprisonment
and fine:
(1) Any person who unlawfully fights in a public place or
challenges another person in a public place to fight.
(2) Any person who maliciously and willfully disturbs another
person by loud and unreasonable noise.
(3) Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which
are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.
Giving the finger may be interpreted by some to be protected speech when the act is directed to a public official, but I don’t think the same applies when directed to a private person.
In other words, certain actions or words inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction still constitute a breach of the public peace.
I think it can easily be shown that not only was the finger being given by the protester to everyone in the vicinity, but also that his actions were accompanied by inflammatory words as well.
Just because the law has been selectively enforced doesn’t negate the fact that it’s still a law on the books.
There’s a difference between being in custody and being followed.
The protester was walking in front of the deputies and was not handcuffed or otherwise restrained.
For some reason you keep trying to make him a victim here so I suspect you might be a Cruz supporter and any excuse to make Trump look bad is fair game.
I’ll confess I did not know all the circumstances of the situation. If in custody then yes, the old guy was out of line and should pay the price.
While giving a finger MIGHT be breach of peace, sucker punching someone is clearly assault and battery.
Still exists, but is now an exclusive right of black thugs.
That's why the word "dissin'" exists.
Does not apply to the knockout "game" however.
Totally agree. We think we have become too civilized for fist fighting but the truth is our society was far more polite when people knew there might well be an immediate reaction to their words/actions.
I actually have no problem with the guy punching out the thug in response to his actions which years ago would have been termed a “fighting gesture” and thought justified.
When a person has been detained and is being moved from a location (being removed for tresspass), the individual is in the custody of law enforcement.
To arrest an individual, law enforcement officers need probable cause. An arrest is characterized by the idea that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave due to the actions of the law enforcement officers. This usually means that the officers take the individual into custody. Custody can mean a number of things. An individual may be taken into custody by driving them back to the police station. However, courts have also held custody to mean any situation in which an individual reasonably believes that they will not be able to leave within a short period of time. A law enforcement officer has probable cause to make an arrest when there are objective circumstances that lead a reasonable officer to believe that there is a high probability or substantial chance that the individual has been involved in, or will be involved in, criminal activity.
It is clear to me that the protester was not free to come, stay or go as he pleased. As such, he was in the custody of the officers and was being escorted out.
Not likely with a head made out of a piece of granite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.