(06-29-2020, 04:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: From what I understand these protesters tore down/ bypassed a gate that stated private property. No Trespassing.

IMO, that is an added dynamic to this situation. It the right to peaceful assembly extended to doing so on someone else's property?

(06-29-2020, 04:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I was not aware of this.  One would think that would make a huge difference.

(06-29-2020, 04:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Incorrect.  The taser use was directly mentioned as the main justification for the types of charges filed.  The defense attorney's for some of the officers are already all over this.

(06-29-2020, 04:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Then you haven't been paying attention, at all.  I will never directly state what I do or who I work for, especially not in today's climate, and I've given my reasoning for that in the past.  Many people have tried to trip me up with LEO questions, and I've never gottetn them wrong.  Fred, on the other hand, has made blatant errors about the law in his posts.  He did go back later and amend his error, but he still made it.  Also, Fred is a DPD, he is paid to defend people who can't afford a private attorney.  Lastly, LEO's are paid to read, understand, interpret and apply the law as well, far more frequently than a DPD btw.

(06-29-2020, 04:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have offered a logical, cogent and consistent argument.  You choose not to agree with it.  I have a feeling if Fred was making the exact same argument you'd find it much more palatable.  I suppose we can sit back and see if i turn out to be right, the same exact way I was 100% correct about all the Freddy Grey officers walking.  Was that demonstrating expertise?  Probably not to your apparently lofty standards.

(06-29-2020, 05:42 PM)Dill Wrote: Maybe a few links then? That might bridge the gap I referred to earlier.

Quote:Sounds like someone needing a defense attorney could hire an LEO then.

Quote:Lot's of us would like to keep our privacy in today's climate. Not a problem. But most anyone can state his profession without "directly" stating who he works for or where he lives.  I choose not to even do that. But it sounds like you are saying you are an LEO, but not really, but really claiming LEO expertise. 

Quote:And however expert you are, you lose credibility with me by explaining differences of opinion in terms of the other guy's character flaws. That generally signals lack of expertise. Nothing "professional" about that that I can see.

Quote:Freddy Grey was a little different. No video. Failure to interview relevant witnesses, etc. An easy strike. The Brooks case is different because there is video and proper witnesses,

Quote:and it arrives at a moment of national challenge to a police culture of diluted accountability.

Quote:But we've got your prediction here, from post #971.

The officer in question had to make a split second decision and IMO, he did not act inappropriately.  I do appreciate your statement though, it shows just how unreasonable many people can be when analyzing police use of force decision.

What defense?  Has the former officer been charged with a crime?  Also, if charged the officer will certainly go for a bench trial in which he will be sure to walk.  Quite honestly, if the DA files charges he'll just be pulling a Mosby, filing charges to appease a mob instead of actual doing their job properly.  Even if you disagree with the use of force, there is zero chance that a provable crime was committed.  Not only that, but the officer is almost certainly going to get his job back based on the lack of due process in his firing.  This is not a blatantly obvious abuse of authority like tasing those two college students.  At worst this is a debatable shooting, there is no criminal conduct in this incident by the officer visible to any reasonable, fair minded person.

And if Rolfe goes to court, is convicted of criminal conduct, and doesn't get his old job back, then your rep is still protected by the "fair minded" codicile, right even when wrong.

Quote:I'd appreciate links to "defense attorneys all over this." Other than that, most of our discussion can surely wait until the trial actually begins.

(06-29-2020, 04:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I was not aware of this.  One would think that would make a huge difference.

(06-29-2020, 07:46 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Recipe for disaster?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/los-angeles-law-enforcement-police-budget-cuts-special-victims-bureau

(06-29-2020, 07:39 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote:

Estimated to be 100-300 (I have seen varying amounts but all in that range) protestors.

(06-29-2020, 03:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The family is harassed by having a group of angry protesters right outside their house.  What did the rest of her family do to warrant such an occurrence?

Quote:I get what you're saying but I don't think it's hard to draw a line at all. Just because you're a public employee does not mean you should lose your right to be safe in your home. They want to protest the mayor, do it outside her place of business. I get in this instance she doxed people so they felt the need to respond in some sort of kind.

(06-29-2020, 08:11 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: this doesn't raise it to the level that concerns me. I think public officials need thicker skin and a simple protest outside of their house should be an expected part of the job. 

(06-29-2020, 07:46 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Recipe for disaster?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/los-angeles-law-enforcement-police-budget-cuts-special-victims-bureau

(06-29-2020, 08:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What could possibly go wrong? 

(06-29-2020, 08:11 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: this doesn't raise it to the level that concerns me. I think public officials need thicker skin and a simple protest outside of their house should be an expected part of the job.

Quote:She wasn't inherently unsafe. I don't necessarily agree with the tit for tat, but I'm hesitant for adding restrictions to protests.

(06-29-2020, 08:36 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Strongly disagree.

Just because you are a public official doesn't mean your family/children should be free game to be targeted.

(06-29-2020, 08:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sorry, no.  Their family didn't sign up for that.  Also, I'm not just talking about public officials, I'm talking about protests outside of any private residence. 



No?  The same people who destroyed a wrought iron gate and were trespassing on private property should not have caused any concern for the occupants of the home in regards to their safety?  I assume you strongly disagree with the protesters breaking an entering into private property and then unlawfully trespassing and protesting there.


Exactly.  While I found the obnoxious actions of the people who yelled at Ted Cruz and his wife in a restaurant exactly that, obnoxious, he was in a public place.  In that regard I completely agree with Bmore, public figures have to understand that sometimes goes with the territory.  That's a far cry from people mobbing up outside your private residence.

(06-29-2020, 08:36 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Strongly disagree.

Just because you are a public official doesn't mean your family/children should be free game to be targeted.

(06-29-2020, 09:24 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I already said to you in a response that they should be faulted for being on private property in this specific case. 

Speaking hypothetically, though, I don't think family is a shield for a lawful protest against a public official and for that reason I'm not suggesting that protestors shouldn't ever be able to protest in front of a politician's home.

(06-29-2020, 09:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What about someone other than a politician?

(06-29-2020, 09:31 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, we both know there's a huge difference between a politician and a random person. 

(06-29-2020, 09:31 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, we both know there's a huge difference between a politician and a random person. 

(06-29-2020, 10:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm pleased (honestly) that we agree on this.  Would you be in favor of a federal law banning protests outside the private residence of anyone other than a person holding an elected position?

(06-29-2020, 10:15 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I doubt it would be constitutional, but I wouldn't be upset with it.