And the Nazis said, "We were just following orders." just before they were executed for their war crimes. You commit the crime, you do the time. How ignorant must one be to follow an unlawful order? How ignorant must one be to jeopardize his freedom by committing a crime that only benefits another? How clueless can a person be?
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
You Apply For Or Sign A Warrant Under The Red Flag Law
Five American citizens who have never committed a crime have been killed by police while serving a warrant under the Red Flag law. Under the Red Flag laws, probable cause is not needed, but merely the fear of one person who thinks that the accused MAY, not is a danger, but MAY be a danger to someone in the future, no matter how distant that future may be. The accuser in most of the cases has been a paranoid relative.
Notice to police and judges.
If you don't have probable cause you're not supposed to apply for a warrant and judges, if the officer doesn't have probable cause, then you're not supposed to sign the warrant. In both cases, the warrant is invalid and cannot legally be served. Having said all this (boy, I hate that phrase), in any event, the Red Flag law is unconstitutional on its face.
Open invitation to all police officers and judges to debate the subject.
Police Instructor in Criminal Law, Laws of Arrest, Rules of Evidence, and Search and Seizure for 24-years.
Note: The mere rantings and paranoia of an individual do NOT meet the standards of Probable Cause.
You Believe Anything CNN Broadcast
CNN posted a misleading article on Facebook regarding the shooting by police in Scranton, PA of a man wielding a knife, as most of their stories and articles are.
I tried to post a picture of a man's back with severe knife wounds to show why police shoot a person that is threatening them with a knife. Facebook would not allow it to be printed as they deemed it to be nudity and against their community standards.
Pictures of the back of men in a Speedo bathing suit is fine, but a man's wounded back isn't. Why?
My point was to show why police will shoot a man wielding a knife in a threatening manner or attempting to assault them with a knife.
This picture has been shown to police officers during training.
I tried to post a picture of a man's back with severe knife wounds to show why police shoot a person that is threatening them with a knife. Facebook would not allow it to be printed as they deemed it to be nudity and against their community standards.
Pictures of the back of men in a Speedo bathing suit is fine, but a man's wounded back isn't. Why?
My point was to show why police will shoot a man wielding a knife in a threatening manner or attempting to assault them with a knife.
This picture has been shown to police officers during training.
As A Police Officer You Don't Defend Yourself
"The New world order Goons are buying the Democrats high-intensity lasers so they can Blind Police."
Whenever anyone tries to blind a police officer, which is a serious physical injury, the officer has a right under the law, even a duty to defend himself, up to and including the use of deadly force. Why? Because it's his duty to stay whole so he can continue to protect the law-abiding citizens in his precinct which is part of the oath that he took when he accepted the job. To do less is a dereliction of duty.
Site owner. Criminal Law Instructor, 24-years.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10224345129004621&set=a.1390426609480&type=3
eid=ARDvfuHyHbmgxfKPHvZJm4cgKlhAjLSkrWUdpB0rG_EydAzy_nJAt8i54J_GM0zsQeNWufWocWVC3lkr
(Copy and Paste in your browser to see the photo).
Whenever anyone tries to blind a police officer, which is a serious physical injury, the officer has a right under the law, even a duty to defend himself, up to and including the use of deadly force. Why? Because it's his duty to stay whole so he can continue to protect the law-abiding citizens in his precinct which is part of the oath that he took when he accepted the job. To do less is a dereliction of duty.
Site owner. Criminal Law Instructor, 24-years.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10224345129004621&set=a.1390426609480&type=3
eid=ARDvfuHyHbmgxfKPHvZJm4cgKlhAjLSkrWUdpB0rG_EydAzy_nJAt8i54J_GM0zsQeNWufWocWVC3lkr
(Copy and Paste in your browser to see the photo).
You Think That You're Still A Police Officer in California
There are no longer any Law Enforcement Officers in the state of California. Since California has become a Sanctuary State, the police officers no longer enforce Federal Statutes. Therefore, based on the cite below, they no longer are acting under color of law, but as civilians . . . at their own peril.
Retired LEO, Criminal and Procedural Law Instructor -- 24 years.
Retired LEO, Criminal and Procedural Law Instructor -- 24 years.
The Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States."
Author's Note: This does not pertain to or impact retired California officers.
You Don't Know What A Lie Is.
An untruth is not a lie.
Lie = to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive. -- Merriam Webster dictionary. Even the dictionaries have the definition wrong.
If I intend to deceive an evil person by telling him an untruth; it is not a lie.
To tell a just person an untruth with the intent to harm an innocent person is a lie. To tell an untruth to enhance your position or to gain an advantage over another unfairly are lies.
"The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
"The truth," = Facts that are personally known by you based on your experiences, your personal observation of the situation, your background and education on the subject.
"The whole truth," = Not leaving out any facts, known to you, that is pertinent to the situation.
"And nothing but the truth," = By not adding information to enhance your position or to cause harm to another person in an attempt to deceive.
If you do not have all three criteria . . . you've just lied.
Then, what is a lie? It's intentionally telling an untruth to do harm.
If you have to change a fact, however slight, to make it sound better; you've just lied.
Lie = to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive. -- Merriam Webster dictionary. Even the dictionaries have the definition wrong.
If I intend to deceive an evil person by telling him an untruth; it is not a lie.
To tell a just person an untruth with the intent to harm an innocent person is a lie. To tell an untruth to enhance your position or to gain an advantage over another unfairly are lies.
"The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
"The truth," = Facts that are personally known by you based on your experiences, your personal observation of the situation, your background and education on the subject.
"The whole truth," = Not leaving out any facts, known to you, that is pertinent to the situation.
"And nothing but the truth," = By not adding information to enhance your position or to cause harm to another person in an attempt to deceive.
If you do not have all three criteria . . . you've just lied.
Then, what is a lie? It's intentionally telling an untruth to do harm.
If you have to change a fact, however slight, to make it sound better; you've just lied.
You Don't Know What You Are as a Law Enforcement Officer
When a law enforcement officer breaches his oath he is no longer an officer. But what about the oath? It must be to protect the Constitution if his country has one, the laws of his country if they are moral and to protect the people of his city, state or country. An oath is illegal and never binding if its intent is to protect the government or sworn to a specific person. No man or government is above the moral laws of humanity. Any supposed law enforcement officer who swears allegiance to an individual is a thug, criminal or insane. Some officers may believe that because they are being paid by the government he must obey the orders of said government. That belief is a total falsehood as no government has ever paid their employees. In fact, no government has ever had any money to pay anyone. All government employees are paid by the citizens of their country whether through the taxes that they pay or that the government obtains other capital by confiscating (stealing) the natural resources or the resources of its citizens. "I was only following orders," uttered many officers as they were marched to the gallows or prison. The Nuremberg Trials after WWII has clearly defined this concept. If an officer follows an unlawful order (an order against humanity) he and only he is responsible for the action that he takes. You can't blame it on any one else. I would venture to say that nearly half of the alleged police officers in the world are merely goons of one other man. When that man falls then all your (unlawful) powers disappear overnight. Then what will you do? The next tyrannical leader must kill you as your pledge was to support another, not him. But if your oath is to your country then you can serve under any change in government. To the good moral officers I wish you a safe journey through your profession. To all the others, how does it feel knowing that you're merely a stooge?
(I'm a retired Law Enforcement Officer.)
(I'm a retired Law Enforcement Officer.)
You Don't Know What Stealing Is.
Pennsylvania Law: "theft of lost property." (where the defendant fails to try to return the lost property to its rightful owner). Most states have the same or similar laws.
A few months back my son lost his cell phone. He was able to trace it to an affluent street in Philadelphia but could not pin-point the exact house as then the phone was probably turned off. As a college student it was a major loss as he had to replace it with another at a cost of $400.00.
The finder probably using the excuse that "finders keepers, losers weepers" knows or is ignorant of the fact that that old saying is not true.
The finder could have easily found the owner merely by calling any of the phone numbers listed on said phone. Obviously anyone owning these numbers knows my son or he wouldn't have their number listed as contacts.
Or just as easily turn the phone into the nearest police station where an officer would have called any of the numbers listed on the phone to easily trace the owner.
The finder, who lives on an affluent street, most likely has a lot more money than a struggling college student and through his arrogance and lack of empathy feels that he had a windfall and bragged to his family and friends of his good luck. Obviously his family and friends are just as ignorant as he and/or were afraid to tell him that he was now a criminal. Being of the same mindset, i.e., ignorant, stupid and cowards.
theft of services;
theft of lost property (where the defendant fails to try to return the lost property to its rightful owner)
- See more at: http://statelaws.findlaw.com/pennsylvania-law/pennsylvania-theft-larceny-law.html#sthash.D4ZHTBw9.dpuf
theft of services;
theft of lost property (where the defendant fails to try to return the lost property to its rightful owner)
- See more at: http://statelaws.findlaw.com/pennsylvania-law/pennsylvania-theft-larceny-law.html#sthash.D4ZHTBw9.dpuf
A few months back my son lost his cell phone. He was able to trace it to an affluent street in Philadelphia but could not pin-point the exact house as then the phone was probably turned off. As a college student it was a major loss as he had to replace it with another at a cost of $400.00.
The finder probably using the excuse that "finders keepers, losers weepers" knows or is ignorant of the fact that that old saying is not true.
The finder could have easily found the owner merely by calling any of the phone numbers listed on said phone. Obviously anyone owning these numbers knows my son or he wouldn't have their number listed as contacts.
Or just as easily turn the phone into the nearest police station where an officer would have called any of the numbers listed on the phone to easily trace the owner.
The finder, who lives on an affluent street, most likely has a lot more money than a struggling college student and through his arrogance and lack of empathy feels that he had a windfall and bragged to his family and friends of his good luck. Obviously his family and friends are just as ignorant as he and/or were afraid to tell him that he was now a criminal. Being of the same mindset, i.e., ignorant, stupid and cowards.
theft
of lost property (where the defendant fails to try to return the lost
property to its rightful owner) - See more at:
http://statelaws.findlaw.com/pennsylvania-law/pennsylvania-theft-larceny-law.html#sthash.a6rtMEBv.dpuf
theft
of lost property (where the defendant fails to try to return the lost
property to its rightful owner) - See more at:
http://statelaws.findlaw.com/pennsylvania-law/pennsylvania-theft-larceny-law.html#sthash.a6rtMEBv.dpuf
You Change Lane Into Oncoming Traffic Around A Parked Car
Someone asked me the other day “who has the right-of-way when approaching a parked vehicle on the roadway blocking your lane?”
This has always been a
hard question to answer as basically both cars have one-half of the
available roadway. This is fine when there's no parked car that
blocks your lane. The law speaks of Stationary Emergency or
Maintenance Vehicles with flashing lights. But what if it's not one
of those vehicles? As the law is quite specific when encountering
those vehicles why can't we use that law for any other type of
vehicle or obstruction in your travel lane.
If, “you are required
to make a lane change, you must make the lane change only if it's
safe to do so according to road and traffic conditions. If a lane
change is not possible, prohibited by law, or unsafe, you must slow
down to a reasonable and proper speed for the existing conditions and
be prepared to stop.” And, of course, stop if necessary to avoid a
collision.
You Think The Police Are Obligated To Protect You
If the police were obligated to protect everyone then they would be
monetarily obligated to pay for all damages done by criminals that they
did not stop which would cost billions
of taxpayers money. They are obligated to keep the general peace, not
babysit every individual. People are the problem. If you elected people
who believe in the right of self defense there would eventually be far
less home invaders. Eventually they would either stop or all be dead.
Don't blame the police, blame yourself for not defending yourself and believing government lies that they will defend you; therefore you don't need guns.
The Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm. An exception may occur when you are in police custody, being transported or locked up.
Don't blame the police, blame yourself for not defending yourself and believing government lies that they will defend you; therefore you don't need guns.
The Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm. An exception may occur when you are in police custody, being transported or locked up.
You Don't Know What The Truth Is
You don't know what the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth is.
plural truths
1 a archaic :
fidelity,
constancy
b : sincerity in action, character, and
utterance2 a (1) : the
state of being the case : fact
(2) : the body of real things, events, and
facts : actuality
(3) often capitalized : a
transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b :
a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true
<truths of thermodynamics> c :
the body of true statements and propositions
- Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
- Her story contains a grain of truth but also
lots of exaggeration
the whole truth - not leaving any material out
nothing but the truth - definitely no lies
You Think Your Spouse Can Never Testify Against You
On Wednesday, July 6, 2011, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed a former karate instructor's conviction of risk of injury to a child. (The Hartford Courant, July 7, 2011).
The reason is that the prosecutor read an email on the accused computer's that was confiscated by the police. The email was intended for his lawyer which, of course, falls under the Privileged Communications Doctrine. The prosecutor stated that his reading it did not injure the defendant. You can say anything you want but it doesn't work that way.
The court wouldn't merely declare a mistrial as the next prosecutor would read the record about the email which would taint his case also.
Another area that cannot be brought up in court is Work Product. As a former Private Investigator working for attorneys I could not be subpoened to testify on the information I obtained.
The reason is that the prosecutor read an email on the accused computer's that was confiscated by the police. The email was intended for his lawyer which, of course, falls under the Privileged Communications Doctrine. The prosecutor stated that his reading it did not injure the defendant. You can say anything you want but it doesn't work that way.
The court wouldn't merely declare a mistrial as the next prosecutor would read the record about the email which would taint his case also.
Another area that cannot be brought up in court is Work Product. As a former Private Investigator working for attorneys I could not be subpoened to testify on the information I obtained.
You Predicted a Conviction
In the Casey Anthony case. Many lawyers and talking heads on TV predicted a guilty verdict. Why? To make themselves feel important. All they did was to embarrass themselves. Our Constitution says Innocent until proven Guilty. No one should speculate, or try to convince me, on the guilt or innocence of a person. I and only I will determine that; I AM THE JURY.
If you now feel that the state lost because all they had was Circumstantial Evidence, don't be too smug. Circumstantial Evidence has the same weight as Direct Evidence.
Note: A judge cannot overturn the finding of Not Guilty by a jury. He may, though, overturn a finding of Guilty if he feels that the state did not meet their burden.
If you now feel that the state lost because all they had was Circumstantial Evidence, don't be too smug. Circumstantial Evidence has the same weight as Direct Evidence.
Note: A judge cannot overturn the finding of Not Guilty by a jury. He may, though, overturn a finding of Guilty if he feels that the state did not meet their burden.
You Think Other Stupid People Should Get Big Settlements
Trial lawyers today take almost any case hoping that a jury will give their client big money for their stupid acts. They usually are correct. Why do jurors find for the Plaintiff (the one who sues) even when the Plaintiff did something stupid but wants to get paid for the action. The jury finds against the Defendant (the person/company being sued) who did nothing wrong.
A jury finds the defendant – McDonalds – at fault and awards the lady who put hot coffee in her lap a million dollars. Now McDonalds has a sign saying that their coffee is hot.
A lady puts her Winnebago on cruise control and leaves the driver's seat to go make herself a sandwich. The Winnebago, of course, crashes and she sues the company. The company lost because their Owner's Manual didn't say not to leave the driver's seat while on cruise control – now it does. The jury gives her a new Winnebago and a million dollars. The price of a Big Mac went up a few cents which we all now pay. Jurors today think that companies have a lot of money so it doesn't matter how much it allots the Plaintiff. Where does this money come from – YOU! Every time you buy something today you pay additional so you (a member of the jury) can give tons of your money to the idiots. How smart a juror are you? NOT VERY.
A jury finds the defendant – McDonalds – at fault and awards the lady who put hot coffee in her lap a million dollars. Now McDonalds has a sign saying that their coffee is hot.
A lady puts her Winnebago on cruise control and leaves the driver's seat to go make herself a sandwich. The Winnebago, of course, crashes and she sues the company. The company lost because their Owner's Manual didn't say not to leave the driver's seat while on cruise control – now it does. The jury gives her a new Winnebago and a million dollars. The price of a Big Mac went up a few cents which we all now pay. Jurors today think that companies have a lot of money so it doesn't matter how much it allots the Plaintiff. Where does this money come from – YOU! Every time you buy something today you pay additional so you (a member of the jury) can give tons of your money to the idiots. How smart a juror are you? NOT VERY.
You Don't Use Jury Nullification When Warranted
One innocent man was sent back to prison for sexual assault of a child after the Supreme Court ruled he had no right to evidence that would later set him free.
Another was convicted of murder and came within weeks of being executed because prosecutors had hidden a blood test that later freed him.
Last week Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who argued that criminal defendants have no right to “potentially useful evidence” that “might” show they were innocent.
In the past, the court has shielded individual prosecutors from being sued, even if they deliberately framed an innocent person.1
A juror once asked the judge about Jury Nullification. The judge told him that it was not legal. How much trust would you put in a judge's opinion who lies to his jury to follow his own agenda instead of the law?
Juries originally were introduced into England to protect the individual from the tyranny of government. One of the first cases of Jury Nullification was in 1670. Jury Nullification even dates back to the Magna Carta. Could we not say that the above examples come close to tyranny by the government?
Another was convicted of murder and came within weeks of being executed because prosecutors had hidden a blood test that later freed him.
Last week Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who argued that criminal defendants have no right to “potentially useful evidence” that “might” show they were innocent.
In the past, the court has shielded individual prosecutors from being sued, even if they deliberately framed an innocent person.1
A juror once asked the judge about Jury Nullification. The judge told him that it was not legal. How much trust would you put in a judge's opinion who lies to his jury to follow his own agenda instead of the law?
Juries originally were introduced into England to protect the individual from the tyranny of government. One of the first cases of Jury Nullification was in 1670. Jury Nullification even dates back to the Magna Carta. Could we not say that the above examples come close to tyranny by the government?
