Cop Not Indicted

[Brainfreeze]

Thanks.

But what I actually need is that for which I asked.

Due process has also been frequently interpreted as limiting laws and legal proceedings (see substantive due process), so that judges—instead of legislators—may define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. This interpretation of due process is sometimes expressed as a command that the government must not be unfair to the people or abuse them physically.


In United States constitutional law, substantive due process (SDP) is a principle which allows federal courts to protect certain fundamental rights from government interference under the authority of the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, which prohibit the federal and state governments, respectively, from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."



He didn't get his day in court... He was sentenced to death right there on the cold pavement...

 

[Elin]

Due process has also been frequently interpreted as limiting laws and legal proceedings (see substantive due process), so that judges—instead of legislators—may define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. This interpretation of due process is sometimes expressed as a command that the government must not be unfair to the people or abuse them physically.


In United States constitutional law, substantive due process (SDP) is a principle which allows federal courts to protect certain fundamental rights from government interference under the authority of the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, which prohibit the federal and state governments, respectively, from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

He didn't get his day in court... He was sentenced to death right there on the cold pavement...

Only if he were intentionally murdered.

Otherwise, he caused his own demise by resisting lawful taking into custody.

 

[Brainfreeze]

Only if he were intentionally murdered.

Otherwise, he caused his own demise by resisting lawful taking into custody.

A man screaming HE CANT BREATHE... and " the cop " insist to keep CHOKING him... How much more intent is needed.. When is resisting not resisting anymore ? If someone beats you over the head to where your near unconsciousness, and they then scream QUIT RESISTING... Bash you again to where your now unconscious .. Then start choking you to death.. Again screaming... QUIT RESISTING... There job is to subdue... Not physically harm or kill, unless life is threatened.. This cop went far and beyond what the law should allow especially with FOUR OR FIVE other officers standing there...beyond ridiculous to agree with what happened.. he was not a threat, just because he's over weight..

 

[Brainfreeze]

Due process has also been frequently interpreted as limiting laws and legal proceedings (see substantive due process), so that judges—instead of legislators—may define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. This interpretation of due process is sometimes expressed as a command that the government must not be unfair to the people or abuse them physically.

Abuse them physically ... Doesn't have to be murder... Any physical abuse..

In United States constitutional law, substantive due process (SDP) is a principle which allows federal courts to protect certain fundamental rights from government interference under the authority of the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, which prohibit the federal and state governments, respectively, from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."



He didn't get his day in court... He was sentenced to death right there on the cold pavement...

Not murder.. Any physical abuse.. by the way, this was beyond abuse of power

 

[kennethcadwell]

I find no issue with credibility only the same passion we all exhibit right or wrong but his words are just as powerful as any other
pastac

Which is why I go by what my Lord Jesus Christ said.
If somebody does not like me for saying His words, then I am sorry but it will never get me from supporting Him to go with man's morals, philosophies, values, and standards.
Remember He said you will be hated by man for His sake. He said this because what He taught is always going to be contrary to how man wants to live, unless that person has given their full devotion to Him. Then they would want to live how he wants us to live, not how the world wants us to live.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Yes, support of sin is to participate in the sin.

But non-support of a law is lawful, and does not equate to disobedience of a law, which is unlawful.

And I know of no law requiring sinful action by the Christian, thereby requiring him to unlawfully disobey.

All of the Apostles were put to death, or exiled for preaching and supporting the gospel in areas that it was considered by their laws blasphemous in what they were teaching.

 

[Brainfreeze]

I want to know if people think this cop would've treated his mother or his brother like this... or would've he acted the exact same way ?

 

[Elin]

I want to know if people think
this cop would've treated his mother or his brother like this... or would've he acted the exact same way ?

You evaluate subjectively, rather than objectively, according to principles of law, by which right judgment is made.

Our justice system is based on legal principles, not subjective notions.

If to resist lawful taking into custody for selling stolen property, his mother were pointing a 12-gauge shotgun at him (rather than being a man twice his size), I would expect him to take her down physically, and if she kept trying to kick him in the groin, I would expect him to sit on her legs, which might inadvertently break a shin or dislocate a hip.

To resist lawful taking into custody is breaking the law.

 

[Elin]

A man screaming HE CANT BREATHE... and " the cop " insist to keep CHOKING him... How much more intent is needed.. When is resisting not resisting anymore ?

When you stop your resistance to being cuffed.

If someone beats you over the head to where your near unconsciousness, and they then scream QUIT RESISTING... Bash you again to where your now unconscious .. Then start choking you to death.. Again screaming... QUIT RESISTING... There job is to subdue... Not physically harm or kill, unless life is threatened.. This cop went far and beyond what the law should allow especially with FOUR OR FIVE other officers standing there...beyond ridiculous to agree with what happened..
he was not a threat, just because he's over weight..

Agreed.

How would overweight cause his law breaking, in resisting being taken into custody?

The law enforcement officers' job is to take the subject into custody and not get killed in the process.
They have no way of knowing if the man is telling the truth or engaging in a ploy when he says he cannot breathe.
All the more reason the man should let them cuff him and stop resisting.

The law enforecement officers' safety depends on the subject being handcuffed, with no reduction of force until the hands are cuffed.

The sooner the man allows them to cuff him, the sooner they can reduce the force that disables his breathing.

The man caused his own demise by his breaking the law (lawlessness) in resisting being taken into custody.

 

[Elin]

Not murder.. Any physical abuse.. by the way, this was beyond abuse of power

It is not physical abuse to use force against unlawful resistance to lawful taking into custody.

It is not physical abuse to use force proportionate to the force which can be used by the unlawful resister.

It could all have been avoided had the man submitted according to the law.
And knowing his own health condition, it was sheer folly to try to resist enforcement of the law.

 

[Elin]

Yes, support of sin is to participate in the sin.

But non-support of a law is lawful, and does not equate to disobedience of a law, which is unlawful.

And I know of no law requiring sinful action by the Christian, thereby requiring him to unlawfully disobey.

All of the Apostles were put to death, or exiled for preaching and supporting the gospel in areas that it was considered by their laws blasphemous in what they were teaching.

Is that a response directed to my statement?

 

[Brainfreeze]

You evaluate subjectively, rather than objectively, according to principles of law, by which right judgment is made.

Our justice system is based on legal principles, not subjective notions.

If to resist lawful taking into custody for selling stolen property, his mother were pointing a 12-gauge shotgun at him (rather than being a man twice his size), I would expect him to take her down physically, and if she kept trying to kick him in the groin, I would expect him to sit on her legs, which might inadvertently break a shin or dislocate a hip.

To resist lawful taking into custody is breaking the law.

So as long as a corrupt cop abusing power says your resisting .. Must be the case right, cops word over citizen ..

How does he know he's telling the truth ? ... Guess he won't now, the guy has passed.

Subjective ? ... This is for anyone, any where.. They should not be in a choke hold .. Period, as I said from beginning " this maneuver wasn't by the book ". You can go along with what this guy did... These protest say otherwise.. Good for them!!

This guy will have a judge ... it won't be me he has to answer to... I would recommend to all officers to assess situations as best as possible, and treat people as if they were in their shoes in cases as this.. Minor, petty crimes... No hero here.. for sure

 

[Elin]

So as long as a corrupt cop abusing power says your resisting .. Must be the case right, cops word over citizen ..

You paint with a broad brush.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

We all get a generous amounts of likes here at CC so if you're going to invoke that as some form of proof of legitimacy to your false assertions then I suppose we should compare reps... oops.. yours is low. Lol.

Kenneth, your position is false not because you get a lot of likes but because it doesn't correlate with a true interpretation of scripture despite your false assertion that it does as has been repeatedly shown to you.

It's you on one side grossly misrepresenting scripture to comport with your wishful thinking and liberal ideology and a large body of bible scholars with an accurate scriptural exegesis on the other (which I adhere to and share).

But I do support free speech. So carry on if it makes you happy but understand that a stubborn, uneducated, unteachable person who misrepresents scripture and makes false assertions at odds with both the historical and modern consensus of orthodox biblical scholars while falsely claiming what they "say is from the bible" is both sad and comical to those of us who know better.

Though your faulty exegesis falls short of providing the foundation for a full blown religious cult like the SDA or JV (which always began around the faulty exegesis of some person negatively deviating from historical orthodoxy while claiming not to), you're far enough removed from orthodox Christianity that you could start your own sect. Perhaps it could be called the 'kennethcadwell sect of Jesus enlightenment.'

Let me know if you ever deceive enough people to go that route. I'll rearrange my calendar and write books soundly refuting you and your false exegesis to sell them for $2.00 a piece on the Internet. It will be fun.

That is your opinion for only to you and maybe three others disagree with what I say.
There is still a lot of others here on CC that agree with what I say, and are constantly given me likes for what I have said. Because what I say is from the bible, not from man installing their own morals and traditions into the words of the bible.

 

[Brainfreeze]

We all get a generous amounts of likes here at CC so if you're going to invoke that as some form of proof of legitimacy to your false assertions then I suppose we should compare reps... oops.. yours is low. Lol.

Was that supposed to be funny ?... I guess this should get you more likes ?... The pope is liked by billions.. What does that mean? ... Nothing, absolutely nothing

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Liberals have reached the point where their ideology has been so successfully transferred into the legal code that the police are required by law to arrest a person selling a few loose cigarettes on the street.

Liberals actively voted for the liberal politicians that passed those laws. They agitated for the introduction of that legislation and checked yes on those measures when they came on the ballot. The criminalization of tobacco in America began as a liberal social movement and primarily remains one today.

I think you're asking the wrong question. There's far more involved here than a police officer that didn't treat someone he's required by law to take into custody over selling a few cigarettes on a sidewalk like his mother.

And, perhaps even an e-cigarette in the future as "liberals" continue seeking ever greater government power and a change in the rule of law to force populations to conform to their ideology or else face disenfranchisement, imprisonment, impoverishment, and even death as a result.

As a non-liberal, I'm of the opinion that a person selling a few cigarettes on the street should be issued an inexpensive traffic infraction and never taken into custody (unless they also have a preexisting warrant for an actual crime) averting these situations before they start.

It's material to the discussion to note that the rioting "liberals" created the situation to begin with in the voting booth.

I want to know if people think this cop would've treated his mother or his brother like this... or would've he acted the exact same way ?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Exactly. That's what I was communicating.

Kenneth stated:

"There is still a lot of others here on CC that agree with what I say, and are constantly given me likes for what I have said. Because what I say is from the bible, not from man installing their own morals and traditions into the words of the bible."

I corrected him by pointing out that "We all get generous amounts of likes here at CC so if you're going to invoke that as some form of proof of legitimacy to your false assertions then I suppose we should compare reps" before putting his delusional statements of kennethcadwell inerrancy into a proper perspective for his edification in #474... lol.

Was that supposed to be funny ?... I guess this should get you more likes ?... The pope is liked by billions.. What does that mean? ... Nothing, absolutely nothing

 

[Brainfreeze]

Exactly. That's what I was communicating.

Kenneth stated:

"There is still a lot of others here on CC that agree with what I say, and are constantly given me likes for what I have said. Because what I say is from the bible, not from man installing their own morals and traditions into the words of the bible."

I corrected him by pointing out that "We all get generous amounts of likes here at CC so if you're going to invoke that as some form of proof of legitimacy to your false assertions then I suppose we should compare reps" before putting his delusional statements of kennethcadwell inerrancy into a proper perspective for his edification in #474... lol.

I apologize brother.. He did say that about others agreeing with him, he welcomed the rep comment .. but you don't have to laugh at him, help the brother best you can...and I agree with 476# post in it's entirety .. This was completely avoidable,

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

This is delusional. You state that you always go by what Jesus Christ said meaning that you have a perfect knowledge and are inerrant in every word you speak and every act you make on this earth. Kenneth, you're a liar. You do not "always go by what my Lord Jesus Christ said."

In fact, you've been clearly show to materially misrepresent what Jesus says on a wide range of issues demonstrating your ignorance and stubborn resistance to what any genuine Christian or qualified bible scholar has to say if it does not align with your own thinking. The martyr complex is just another delusional addon.

You're being corrected not persecuted Kenneth. Learn to tell the difference.

Which is why I go by what my Lord Jesus Christ said.
If somebody does not like me for saying His words, then I am sorry but it will never get me from supporting Him to go with man's morals, philosophies, values, and standards.
Remember He said you will be hated by man for His sake. He said this because what He taught is always going to be contrary to how man wants to live, unless that person has given their full devotion to Him. Then they would want to live how he wants us to live, not how the world wants us to live.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I should learn to be more patient with people like Kenneth but they waste everyone's time and mislead people with their constant ignorant and stubborn tom foolery. He's impervious to correction from genuine Christian scholars and every educated Christian on the planet that's qualified to correct his transparent nonsense. I suppose in the end, God will have to humble him to make him teachable.

I apologize brother.. He did say that about others agreeing with him, he welcomed the rep comment .. but you don't have to laugh at him, help the brother best you can...and I agree with 476# post in it's entirety .. This was completely avoidable,