2020 US Presidential Election (aka: The Trump Coronation)

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Because they hope to get away with it?

Not everyone that pleads "Not Guilty" is actually "Not Guilty" you know?

And , once again - what he was or was not doing with his phone is by and large irrelevant , what matters is whether or the actions of the officers were proportionate to the risks presented by the situation.

He could have been showing them a video of him killing Jimmy Hoffa for all that it matters.

Were they acting within the law when they shoved a non-violent protester to the ground resulting in him sustaining serious injury?

That is the only question that is pertinent.

You obviously haven't watched the video closely. Yes, it is relevant. He was interfering with officers doing their jobs... a crime. And YES, they were acting within the law.

Jimmy Hoffa is part of the footing to a bridge in NJ, or so the wiseguy I knew, who was trying to go straight and attending college with me, told me.

Overheal

If what they did was lawful the law needs to change.

notobtuse

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So did O.J Simpson

And he was acquitted, do you believe O.J is innocent?

No, but I saw the footage with my own two eyes and believe what the officers claim.

My oldest daughter attended a lecture of one of the jurors on the OJ Simpson trial. Much of what we the public saw during the case the jury either did not see or was directed they couldn't use in their deliberations. The juror said if just one little bit of evidence would have been allowed, that they got to see after the trial was over, they would have found him guilty

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

No, but I saw the footage with my own two eyes and believe what the officers claim.

My oldest daughter attended a lecture of one of the jurors on the OJ Simpson trial. Much of what we the public saw during the case the jury either did not see or was directed they couldn't use in their deliberations. The juror said if just one little bit of evidence would have been allowed, that they got to see after the trial was over, they would have found him guilty

Yes the jury was blocked from seeing evidence in the murder of Daniel Shaver, and the cop walked. I suppose it’s okay though you know because of the law.

Overheal

Flynn’s still in trouble. Amicus brief:

“ [T]he Court should deny leave because there is clear evidence of a gross abuse of prosecutorial power. Rule 48(a) was designed to “guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases that would benefit powerful and well-connected defendants.”3 In other words, the rule empowers courts to protect the integrity of their own proceedings from prosecutors who undertake corrupt, politically motivated dismissals. See id.; see also Ammidown, 497 F.2d at 620-622. That is what has happened here. The Government has engaged in highly irregular conduct to benefit a political ally of the President. The facts of this case overcome the presumption of regularity. The Court should therefore deny the Government’s motion to dismiss, adjudicate any remaining motions, and then sentence the Defendant.”


“ The Court has also asked me to address whether it should issue an order to show cause why Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury. Flynn has indeed committed perjury in these proceedings, for which he deserves punishment, and the Court has the authority to initiate a prosecution for that crime. I respectfully recommend, however, that the Court not exercise that authority. Rather, it should take Flynn’s perjury into account in sentencing him on the offense to which he has already admitted guilt. This approach—rather than a separate prosecution for perjury or contempt—aligns with the Court’s intent to treat this case, and this Defendant, in the same way it would any other.”

https://www.scribd.com/document/461999444/John-Gleeson-re-Amicus-Brief

eagle eye

Overheal wrote:

Yes the jury was blocked from seeing evidence in the murder of Daniel Shaver, and the cop walked. I suppose it’s okay though you know because of the law.

Well it's a lot more complex than that. There's good reasons behind most decisions to not allow evidence to be presented to a jury.

Overheal

eagle eye wrote: »

Well it's a lot more complex than that. There's good reasons behind most decisions to not allow evidence to be presented to a jury.

And bad reasons, like qualified immunity abuse.

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

You obviously haven't watched the video closely. Yes, it is relevant. He was interfering with officers doing their jobs... a crime. And YES, they were acting within the law.

Jimmy Hoffa is part of the footing to a bridge in NJ, or so the wiseguy I knew, who was trying to go straight and attending college with me, told me.

That is the only question at hand - You think what they did was OK , I don't.

Clearly someone in authority in Buffalo agrees with me at least to the point that they feel further investigation and a court appearance is necessary to determine if indeed their actions were within the law.

If the protester broke laws then he can and should also be charged.

He can be guilty of all the bizarre hacking/scanning theories being discussed AND the Officers can also be guilty of assault.

It's not an either/or binary decision.

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

The officers pleaded not guilty. There must be a reason. I watched the video closely, the guy was doing something nefarious to the two officers with what seems to be his phone. There is no denying that. I might be wrong, but I might be right. I'll wait and see what develops.

I guarantee you he wasn't trying to scan or interfere with their comms. My best guess is that he was filming them. Hardly nefarious and easy to deny it was nefarious. Please don't present any more technical arguments.

Fyi, the reason your scanner doesn't work anymore is the same reason he wasn't scanning or interfering with their comms.

eagle eye

Overheal wrote:

And bad reasons, like qualified immunity abuse.

I said good reasons behind 'most'.

hetuzozaho

notobtuse wrote: »

No, but I saw the footage with my own two eyes and believe what the officers claim.

What are they claiming happened?

Overheal

Trump is down 14 points from Biden in a new CNN poll. In response Trump has sent a cease and desist letter to Jeff zucker :pac: ‘hello sir uhm yes hi we demand you stop posting these damning polls as they are detrimental to our campaign’

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump-lawyers-send-cease-and-desist-letter-demanding-cnn-apologize-and-delete-poll-showing-biden-up-by-14-points/

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

That is the only question at hand - You think what they did was OK , I don't.

Clearly someone in authority in Buffalo agrees with me at least to the point that they feel further investigation and a court appearance is necessary to determine if indeed their actions were within the law.

If the protester broke laws then he can and should also be charged.

He can be guilty of all the bizarre hacking/scanning theories being discussed AND the Officers can also be guilty of assault.

It's not an either/or binary decision.

Unfortunately politics comes into play. The officers may or may not have to go through a trial. And with the idiot NY governor they probably will have to go through a trial. And the guy who actually committed a crime will be made a hero. Democrats, progressives and liberals will be the downfall to us. Property values are now rising where I live. Sane people who can afford the get out of NYC are making the move. They don't want lawlessness, and some are coming here. Others are buying up property in NJ and the people from NJ then are coming here. Just what we need... NY and NJ people coming here and wanting to change what we have into what they were escaping. I've seen it before... I battled them in supervisor meetings before against their 'changes for the better.'

notobtuse

Brian? wrote: »

I guarantee you he wasn't trying to scan or interfere with their comms. My best guess is that he was filming them. Hardly nefarious and easy to deny it was nefarious. Please don't present any more technical arguments.

Fyi, the reason your scanner doesn't work anymore is the same reason he wasn't scanning or interfering with their comms.

How exactly does one film someone when the camera is up against their body?

And who appointed you prosecutor, judge, and jury?

notobtuse

hetuzozaho wrote: »

What are they claiming happened?

It hasn't been made public yet. Just an educated guess.

notobtuse

notobtuse wrote: »

Unfortunately politics comes into play. The officers may or may not have to go through a trial. And with the idiot NY governor they probably will have to go through a trial. And the guy who actually committed a crime will be made a hero. Democrats, progressives and liberals will be the downfall to us. Property values are now rising where I live. Sane people who can afford the get out of NYC are making the move. They don't want lawlessness, and some are coming here. Others are buying up property in NJ and the people from NJ then are coming here. Just what we need... NY and NJ people coming here and wanting to change what we have into what they were escaping. I've seen it before... I battled them in supervisor meetings before against their 'changes for the better.'

You've claimed the man has done something but you've provided absolutely no credible proof.

notobtuse wrote: »

It hasn't been made public yet. Just an educated guess.

Clearly not that educated since you've made claims that something was 'feasible' when it was not. Also seemed to not know the majority of police frequencies are available online including those in Buffalo.

notobtuse

Deleted User wrote: »

You've claimed the man has done something but you've provided absolutely no credible proof.



Clearly not that educated since you've made claims that something was 'feasible' when it was not. Also seemed to not know the majority of police frequencies are available online including those in Buffalo.

The only proof I have is from taking about the situation and the law to my son-in-law who is a police officer in a city of 76,000, a friend of the family who is our chief-of-police, and another friend of the family who is a judge in the county to the west of me. Call me crazy but I’d trust their opinions on the law over some internet justice warriors.

notobtuse

notobtuse wrote: »

The only proof I have is from taking about the situation and the law to my son-in-law who is a police officer in a city of 76,000, a friend of the family who is our chief-of-police, and another friend of the family who is a judge in the county to the west of me. Call me crazy but I’d trust their opinions on the law over some internet justice warriors.

Okay, so your justification of a conspiracy theory is word of mouth that you've invented for all we know. And when nothing comes of your conspiracy theory, then you'll claim that the police officers were silenced or some such nonsense. Anyway, clearly you can't provide a reputable source for your claim.

extra gravy

notobtuse wrote: »

The only proof I have is from taking about the situation and the law to my son-in-law who is a police officer in a city of 76,000, a friend of the family who is our chief-of-police, and another friend of the family who is a judge in the county to the west of me. Call me crazy but I’d trust their opinions on the law over some internet justice warriors.

What proof did they give you? Were they there?

kilns

notobtuse wrote: »

The only proof I have is from taking about the situation and the law to my son-in-law who is a police officer in a city of 76,000, a friend of the family who is our chief-of-police, and another friend of the family who is a judge in the county to the west of me. Call me crazy but I’d trust their opinions on the law over some internet justice warriors.

Oh I’m in the trouble with my argument let me pull out that I have sourced 3 different opinions from 3 different levels of the law to back my argument up. I smell bull

I guess you have a source to say the latest Flynn ruling is wrong

Timberrrrrrrr

notobtuse wrote: »

How exactly does one film someone when the camera is up against their body?

And who appointed you prosecutor, judge, and jury?

Maybe time to upgrade your phone, these days they have cameras on the front and the back.

notobtuse

Deleted User wrote: »

Okay, so your justification of a conspiracy theory is word of mouth that you've invented for all we know. And when nothing comes of your conspiracy theory, then you'll claim that the police officers were silenced or some such nonsense. Anyway, clearly you can't provide a reputable source for your claim.

Taken from FindLaw (But as usual, you can just ignore it)

Battery Against a Police Officer: Elements of the Crime

As with other crimes, the prosecution must prove certain elements in order to get a conviction for battery against an officer. These elements include the following (state laws may organize and word these elements differently):

• The accused willfully and unlawfully touched a peace officer in a way that was harmful or offensive;
• The victim was a peace officer performing their official duties when the accused acted; and
• The accused knew or reasonably should have known the victim was an on-duty peace officer.

Some jurisdictions require that the officer suffer actual injuries in order to get a conviction for battery against a police officer. But other statutes only require proof of a threat or attempt of battery, or classify varying degrees of the offense. For example, California law imposes more serious charges -- with a possible prison sentence of up to three years -- when "an injury is inflicted" upon the victim. Generally, an injury as minor as a scrape or bruise is sufficient. But the infliction of "serious bodily injury" -- defined by California law to include things like broken bones, loss of consciousness, and serious disfigurement -- will most certainly result in a longer prison sentence upon conviction.

Peace Officers and "Official Duties"

Statutes that prohibit acts of battery committed against police officers typically refer to "peace officers" in general. Most states define peace officers to include search and rescue personnel, park rangers, prison guards, university campus police, and others whose job it is to maintain the public peace. State laws also may include service processors, ER doctors and nurses, firefighters, and even lifeguards in that category.

Peace officers perform their "official duties" by carrying out a job duty, regardless of whether they are on the clock. For instance, an off-duty officer out with some friends who witnesses a crime in progress and intervenes by showing her badge and calling for back up is performing her official duties. It's also important to understand that an officer making an illegal arrest is still performing his "official duties" with respect to the law. For example, punching a police officer for illegally harassing someone is still punishable as a crime under these laws.

Sentencing and Punishment

Charges and sentences for this crime vary quite a bit from one state to the next, but often include incarceration (and probation), in addition to steep fines and restitution to the victim. States without a standalone statute for battery against an officer typically provide for enhanced charges when a peace officer is the victim of assault or battery. For example, a second-degree misdemeanor charge for assault may be upgraded to a first-degree misdemeanor.

Florida law imposes a minimum five-year prison term (and up to 30 years, plus 30 years probation and a $10,000 fine) for anyone convicted of aggravated battery (causing great bodily harm) of a law enforcement officer, classified as a first-degree felony. General battery (not causing great bodily harm) against an officer is charged as a third-degree felony in Florida, punishable by up to five years in prison, five years probation, and a $5,000 fine. The lightest sentence under this statute is six months to one year in county jail for assault against a peace officer, charged as a first-degree misdemeanor.

Be sure to check the laws of your jurisdiction or speak with an attorney if you are unsure.

notobtuse

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Maybe time to upgrade your phone, these days they have cameras on the front and the back.

So he was trying to get a selfie?

notobtuse

You all can believe what you want. It makes no nevermind to me. And I don't expect a apology when/if I'm proven correct. They don't even reinstate you here from a ban when you are proven correct and everyone else is proven wrong. One tough crowd here at Boards... both sides of the deal.

notobtuse

notobtuse wrote: »

Taken from FindLaw (But as usual, you can just ignore it)

I've addressed everything you've posted to date. You keep moving the goal posts though... Why do you think he engaged in battery against a police officer? Every theory you come out with just rewrites your previous ones...

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

You all can believe what you want. It makes no nevermind to me. And I don't expect a apology when/if I'm proven correct. They don't even reinstate you here from a ban when you are proven correct and everyone else is proven wrong. One tough crowd here at Boards... both sides of the deal.

Still that massive chip on your shoulder eh

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

Taken from FindLaw (But as usual, you can just ignore it)

he never touched the officer.

Timberrrrrrrr

notobtuse wrote: »

So he was trying to get a selfie?

What? You said he couldnt have been filming because the camera was the wrong way.
Phones have two cameras, one on the front and one on tha back so what's to say he wasnt filming from one of them?

kilns

notobtuse wrote: »

Taken from FindLaw (But as usual, you can just ignore it)

Congratulations you just closed the case the fact he did not touch them means the Police were in the wrong

kilns

I see Trump Is trying to sue CNN over their latest polls. I’d love to be a fly on the wall as he unravels over the next weeks and months