Student supressed by goose stepping police gets no ADDITIONAL charges

[Wezil]

Aeson -

We appear to be at odds over guilt or innocence. I think you are taking the position he is guilty and hence the deal he took.

I don't know if he is guilty or innocent but I see an area for argument that a good defence attorney could explore. If I was more familiar with US law and precedent I would be more than happy to explore this further with you, but I am not.

My position on the statements - He should not have made any statement on trhe date of offence and if he had any intention of contesting the charge the second statement is "moot" in that it would never have been given.

Why did he take the deal? Who knows? Your position is that he accepted b/c he was guilty as sin and that he would be nuts not to. This may be.

It is also possible that he just wanted the whole matter to go away as quickly and easily as possible. This may rock your world to know but innocent people sometimes enter guilty pleas to offences they are not guilty of. I've personally seen it with one of my Michigan clients. Rather than return to Ontario for a trial he had a decent chance of winning, my instructions were to enter a plea for an agreed upon fine amount. It was the easiest option for that defendant.

Again, I'm not arguing he is innocent. If you want to conduct the trial I shall put it on my trial docket. I leave you in charge of gathering the witnesses however. Let me know when they are ready for questioning and I'll give it my best shot.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Find one thing that doesn't make him look like an idiot, besides standing next to Vesayen, that is.

This wasn't necessary.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Wezil
We appear to be at odds over guilt or innocence. I think you are taking the position he is guilty and hence the deal he took.

I am taking the position that the legal system has found him guilty. And that he has admitted his guilt.

We are not at odds about this. We are at odds about your refusal to accept that my response to Vesayen was about what my response to Vesayen was about.

I don't know if he is guilty or innocent but I see an area for argument that a good defence attorney could explore.

He's already closed that book as we agree.

Why did he take the deal? Who knows? Your position is that he accepted b/c he was guilty as sin and that he would be nuts not to. This may be.

No. My position is that he most likely thought he was facing a losing battle if it went to court, and was offered an out. I think that he made a good choice given that it was clear on video that he escalated the conflict.

You might look at this as a lawyer and think "he could have gotten off"... and in the US, you usually can... if you have enough money.

I look at it as a person, and think "someone could have been seriously injured or killed, just so this jerk could push people out of the way, rant about some inane questions, refuse to observe the decorum of the event, brush off police officers requests that he desist, and then physically resist being escorted out of the room."

I have no question in my mind which interpretation is more valid. And for once, the guy responsible and the court seem to have found a good solution.

This may rock your world to know but innocent people sometimes enter guilty pleas to offences they are not guilty of.

This may rock your world... but I have never said otherwise. It's hillarious that after saying we can't read minds you start trying to read my own. You should come down off that high horse you're on and take a look at what poor little me has actually said. It might help you understand what you are addressing.

But thanks for trying to enlighten me. It's very kind of you, if a bit misdirected in your own pretentious way.

Again, I'm not arguing he is innocent. If you want to conduct the trial I shall put it on my trial docket. I leave you in charge of gathering the witnesses however. Let me know when they are ready for questioning and I'll give it my best shot.

I can watch the video and give my opinion about it. I can read an article and make points about it as well. If you want to have a discussion about that, feel free. This is an internet forum, not a court. Pretending that we should behave as in a court is idiotic.

[Wezil]

The problem Aeson is that you are trying to drag me into arguments I have no desire to have with evidence (and in my case knowledge) we don't have. Sure we can shoot the **** about whether we think he may be guilty or not (pre-deal, I do understand he has accepted but thanks for talking down to me yet again).

The only point I wanted to make way back was that his statement on the date of offence was not wise. I am sorry we misunderstood each other as to what statement I was referring to. You were referring to the 2nd, I was referring to the 1st.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Wezil
The problem Aeson is that you are trying to drag me into arguments I have no desire to have with evidence (and in my case knowledge) we don't have.

I'm not trying to drag you into anything. You post if you want to. I post if I want to.

The only point I wanted to make way back was that his statement on the date of offence was not wise. I am sorry we misunderstood each other as to what statement I was referring to. You were referring to the 2nd, I was referring to the 1st.

We didn't misunderstand each other as to what you were referring to. You misunderstood what I was referring to initially, quoted me, and then I assumed your statement was offered in the same context as what you had quoted.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Aeson


I'm not trying to drag you into anything. You post if you want to. I post if I want to.

Yes, I realise that but I really don't like dropping a conversation/debate midstream. I find it disrespectful. Being thought of as pretentious is bad enough.

We didn't misunderstand each other as to what you were referring to. You misunderstood what I was referring to initially, quoted me, and then I assumed your statement was offered in the same context as what you had quoted.

I can accept that.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Re: Student supressed by goose stepping police gets no ADDITIONAL charges

Originally posted by Cort Haus


It looked to me very much as though he was resisting arrest. I wasn't aware that wrongful arrest made the arrestee entitled to resist it.

He may not have broken a law, but he did something wrong imo. He was a whiny little bítch drama-queen of an attention whore shouting "Help, help, I'm being repressed" for the cameras.

Exactly. He was planning to create a scene. He succeeded. I think it's interesting though, that all the whiners who claim this kind of disruptive tactic is "free speech" but have no interest in the fact that what they are doing is going beyond free speech to actively interfere in the free speech of others.

Besides, any true revolutionary should relish getting the **** stomped out of him by the po-lice.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Wezil
Yes, I realise that but I really don't like dropping a conversation/debate midstream. I find it disrespectful.

I am replying just so as not to be disrespectful.

[Dauphin]

Re: Re: Student supressed by goose stepping police gets no ADDITIONAL charges

Originally posted by Cort Haus
It looked to me very much as though he was resisting arrest. I wasn't aware that wrongful arrest made the arrestee entitled to resist it.

I've paid no attention to this thread aside from this comment. Was the guy unfairly arrested (ie he didn't break the law) or wrongfully arrested (ie he was not arrested in the prescribed way)?

I would think resisting arrest when it is unfair should be legal. Resisting arrest on a technicality is another issue.

[RGBVideo]

See it for yourself (again) for a few times, put yourself in every participants shoes, one at a time. It was very clear that the kid was only attention whoring a la Monty Python's Help Help I'm being oppressed!-scene. It's a bit sad that he succeeded, because this means the act will be copycatted by people who desperately seek publicity. You (Ves) getting worked up about this isn't even sad, it's simply pathetic.

[Cort Haus]

Re: Re: Re: Student supressed by goose stepping police gets no ADDITIONAL charges

Originally posted by Dauphin
I would think resisting arrest when it is unfair should be legal. Resisting arrest on a technicality is another issue.

It's certainly not 'fair', morally speaking, to prevent a speaker from saying their piece in a debate. Fairness and legality are seperate things, of course. Though, if someone is legally entitled to prevent another from exercising their free speech by being an asshat then the law is failing its principles of liberty.

If this kid tries to play the victim while simultaneously obstructing another's liberty to express themselves, then "tasering's too good for 'im" - to continue the Python metaphor (albeit from another film).

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Re: Re: Student supressed by goose stepping police gets no ADDITIONAL charges

Originally posted by Dauphin
I've paid no attention to this thread aside from this comment. Was the guy unfairly arrested (ie he didn't break the law) or wrongfully arrested (ie he was not arrested in the prescribed way)?

I would think resisting arrest when it is unfair should be legal. Resisting arrest on a technicality is another issue.

He was disturbing the peace, engaging in disorderly conduct, and refusing to obey lawful orders.

For the resisting should be legal argument, there are two problems -

The complex one is that it's generally a question of law to be settled after the fact as to whether there's a valid purpose for arrest. You open the can of worms for everyone to apply their creative interpretation as to whether they had a "valid" reason for resisting.

The simpler one is what level of "resistance" would be legal? Presumably the Doc Holliday option would be out, but what would you meaningfully allow as "legal" resistance?

[SlowwHand]

None. A person that fights a cop is irrational.
Do what you're told and perhaps complain later. If you're going, you're going; and if he's still thinking about it and you resist, you're going.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
None. A person that fights a cop is irrational.
Do what you're told and perhaps complain later. If you're going, you're going; and if he's still thinking about it and you resist, you're going.

[Asher]

He obviously wasn't tased enough if he's still complaining about it. Damn kids, can't learn.