Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on September 21, 2013, 10:36:08 AM
-
So watching the video, the father protesting Common Core could have done it better. Had he asked explicit and succinct questions, he could have gotten them out, sat down, and put the burden on the school panel. His rambling on didn't help him. However, watching the video, I can't figure out how he was charged with assault on a police officer. First, I don't see anything except the parent getting shoved and lightly resisting, not fighting back. Second, the off duty cop was clearly wearing a shirt that said "security", not "police". He was not a cop at that point in time, he was a private security guard, so even if there was an assault, it wasn't on a police officer.
http://michellemalkin.com/2013/09/20/parents-you-need-to-question-these-people-shock-video-of-dad-arrested-at-school-meeting-after-challenging-common-core/
-
Article says the dad asked guard if he was a cop and was shown badge. It also acknowledges that they don't know how dad acted when he got outside.
We had a similar incident at back to school nite. Guy just got told to shut up or hit the road. No cops
damn phone
-
did angry dad submit a question? or his questions?
1:40 1:50 in cops pulls badge on lanyard out from around neck in response to dads request.
and in baltimore sun interview dad says he didn't have a problem with the cops
-
and in baltimore sun interview dad says he didn't have a problem with the cops
Irrelevant to the point. The point is, (and let's say the parent is 100% at fault) that he was arrested for assault on a police officer during an altercation with a private security guard, based on the private security guard's day job. What would the charge have been if the private security guard had a day job as a dentist?
Just because a cop is "on duty" all the time doesn't mean that charges related to laws regarding police officers applies to them all the time. If I have a neighbor and we get into a physical altercation over whose dog pooped on whose lawn, if he is a police officer, he shouldn't be allowed to decide to call up some buddies and have me arrested for assault on a police officer. Even if I was 100% at fault, it would simply be "assault".
If the cop involved in this was officially on duty, he should have been in uniform, not in a "security" polo. I've been to many .gov held public meetings where they decided they wanted Federal or State LEOs there as security. They all wore they're official uniforms so you knew exactly who they were and that they were there on official business, not moonlighting as private security.
-
Irrelevant to the point. The point is, (and let's say the parent is 100% at fault) that he was arrested for assault on a police officer during an altercation with a private security guard, based on the private security guard's day job. What would the charge have been if the private security guard had a day job as a dentist?
Just because a cop is "on duty" all the time doesn't mean that charges related to laws regarding police officers applies to them all the time. If I have a neighbor and we get into a physical altercation over whose dog pooped on whose lawn, if he is a police officer, he shouldn't be allowed to decide to call up some buddies and have me arrested for assault on a police officer. Even if I was 100% at fault, it would simply be "assault".
If the cop involved in this was officially on duty, he should have been in uniform, not in a "security" polo. I've been to many .gov held public meetings where they decided they wanted Federal or State LEOs there as security. They all wore they're official uniforms so you knew exactly who they were and that they were there on official business, not moonlighting as private security.
Once dad asked and the cop showed his badge dad screwed himself. Your analogy about the dog poop was a fail
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Once dad asked and the cop showed his badge dad screwed himself. Your analogy about the dog poop was a fail
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
You're arguing letter of the law in a spirit of the law thread. Fail.
-
You're arguing letter of the law in a spirit of the law thread. Fail.
That's one point of view.
Another is that I argue reality over fantasy
Bottom line was if dad had asked his question clearly and sat down waiting for an answer he mighty stood a chance. Did he even post his question as the meeting was formatted? What made him more important than the other attendees who did submit their questions? Whose time was wasted with his tantrum. Like I said we had a guy throw one of those fits. He got told to sit down shut up or get out . He was equally coherent. Nice guy. I know him just had a bug up his butt that night.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
And you still completely fail. Neither the dad nor the cop have anything to do with this topic. The cop did what he was legally allowed to do. You have completely missed the point.
-
And you still completely fail. Neither the dad nor the cop have anything to do with this topic. The cop did what he was legally allowed to do. You have completely missed the point.
Are you amongst the anti common core crowd? Why?
Or is there some more hidden point?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Common core has nothing to do with it. Nice try though.
Have any experience in the legal system? Deal with any cops? Prosecutors? Anything?
-
Common core has nothing to do with it. Nice try though.
Have any experience in the legal system? Deal with any cops? Prosecutors? Anything?
More than a lil bit.
Quite a bit more
damn phone
-
That's one point of view.
Another is that I argue reality over fantasy
Bottom line was if dad had asked his question clearly and sat down waiting for an answer he mighty stood a chance. Did he even post his question as the meeting was formatted? What made him more important than the other attendees who did submit their questions? Whose time was wasted with his tantrum. Like I said we had a guy throw one of those fits. He got told to sit down shut up or get out . He was equally coherent. Nice guy. I know him just had a bug up his butt that night.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Do you know the answers to your questions? I barely skimmed thw article, so maybe I missed it, but I don't recall the answers to questions being given in the article. So are you impugning bad motives or do you have info the rest of us lack? Or are you just so reflexively on the side of the cops that you can't see the possibility that Ben, or the guy in the article, might just have valid points?
-
I suspect his motives were his childrens future so better than fine with me. His tactics blow. First when he decided to interupt and then couldn't articulate a concise question. I am not sure why his question was more important than everyone else who submitted theirs. Then when he got asked to leave he hit stupid getting loud and angry. Hit turbo stupid when after cop identified himself he continued tantrum. I.empathise it could be me i am "that parent" sometimes.
I temper my actions lest they hurt my kids.
damn phone
-
It seemed to me that the panel would not let him finish a statement- he was being constantly interrupted.
-
It seemed to me that the panel would not let him finish a statement- he was being constantly interrupted.
Thats ironic given the meeting format ans how dad took the floor in the first placw. Perhaps reading the charm city sun article instead of only malkins factually slanted bit might help. But perhaps not
damn phone
-
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/blog/bs-md-co-common-core-arrest-20130920,0,7127220.story
-
He did assault the police officer. He struck the police officer's open hand with his arm.
;/
-
heres what hes afraid of
http://www.schoolimprovement.com/common-core-360/blog/Virginia-and-the-Common-Core-Standards/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/02/26/why-i-oppose-common-core-standards-ravitch/
-
You're still so far off base on the thread topic that "opposite" doesn't even begin to explain just how far off you are. If you're gonna veer this far off, at least make it about Firefly, or Glocks vs 1911s or something.
-
You're still so far off base on the thread topic that "opposite" doesn't even begin to explain just how far off you are. If you're gonna veer this far off, at least make it about Firefly, or Glocks vs 1911s or something.
help me out tell me what was wrong
please do better than the "He was not a cop at that point in time, he was a private security guard, so even if there was an assault, it wasn't on a police officer.
"
-
help me out tell me what was wrong
please do better than the "He was not a cop at that point in time, he was a private security guard, so even if there was an assault, it wasn't on a police officer.
"
If you're still stuck on a law discussion vs a philosophy discussion, then I can't help you. You'll need to argue with yourself.
-
If you're still stuck on a law discussion vs a philosophy discussion, then I can't help you. You'll need to argue with yourself.
It's ok. I just can't discern the "philosophy" involved. Then again I tend to back stop malkin for facts rather than following her
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Textures usually preceded with the virginity of hair, which implies that such natural hair that was not chemically treated or colored or straightened. However, there are some coarse textures as well that simply resembled permed or treated hair, usually of the African-American origin, and known as yaki. As there are different cultures and races, there are different lace wigs types as well that resembles the culture appropriately.
In addition to a fashion
I couldn't agree more
-
This story should not be about the dad or the cop specifically. This story is about getting arrested for speaking out against government. It's an all too common story.
The handcuffs were out before the dad was out of the room and he had not assaulted a cop in any way. He did know he was a cop.
This kind of intimidation prevents kall of us from speaking out for fear of being arrested. This is why some of us keep pointing out that all of the Amendments are important, not just the Second.
-
Dad wasn't looking to ask a question he wanted to rant, albeit badly. He coukd do that. Just not at the expense of the other folks who showed up and submitted their questions.
damn phone
-
You're arguing letter of the law in a spirit of the law thread. Fail.
You're arguing that our masters should be our equals. Fail.
-
Yep. Protesting generally goes like a rant. It's constitutionally protected.
-
Yep. Protesting generally goes like a rant. It's constitutionally protected.
I am surprised it took so long for that to come up.
Bet if you try you can figure out why thus guy can't whine 1st amendment.
damn phone
-
It's one of these threads again.
No, I don't think this person was truly removed and treated this way for violating the rules of meeting, I believe it was because the content of his speech offended the pepole running the meeting.
But that said, I do believe that not following the rules of the meeting opened him to this sort of treatment. It is one of these Internet things where a guy breaks some kind of procedural rule, gets PWNed entirely within the letter of the law for it, and then people ignore the letter of the law utterly to defend it.
That said, actually prosecuting this man would have been a fail. Which is why they dropped charges. The system worked.
-
It's one of these threads again.
No, I don't think this person was truly removed and treated this way for violating the rules of meeting, I believe it was because the content of his speech offended the pepole running the meeting.
But that said, I do believe that not following the rules of the meeting opened him to this sort of treatment. It is one of these Internet things where a guy breaks some kind of procedural rule, gets PWNed entirely within the letter of the law for it, and then people ignore the letter of the law utterly to defend it.
That said, actually prosecuting this man would have been a fail. Which is why they dropped charges. The system worked.
Hopefully at some point he gets his answers
Though i get the feeling he really didn't have an answerable question . Just wanted a soapbox.
Don't get me wrong hes not a bad guy
And he might have some good points.
He just failed at getting them out
damn phone
-
It's one of these threads again.
No, I don't think this person was truly removed and treated this way for violating the rules of meeting, I believe it was because the content of his speech offended the pepole running the meeting.
But that said, I do believe that not following the rules of the meeting opened him to this sort of treatment. It is one of these Internet things where a guy breaks some kind of procedural rule, gets PWNed entirely within the letter of the law for it, and then people ignore the letter of the law utterly to defend it.
That said, actually prosecuting this man would have been a fail. Which is why they dropped charges. The system worked.
Your post seems to take all sides in this issue (the removal, not common core). Is there any side you prefer over the others?
-
Hopefully at some point he gets his answers
Though i get the feeling he really didn't have an answerable question . Just wanted a soapbox.
Don't get me wrong hes not a bad guy
And he might have some good points.
He just failed at getting them out
damn phone
That he did. It was about as effective in changing common core as Cruz's speech on the Senate floor.
-
That he did. It was about as effective in changing common core as Cruz's speech on the Senate floor.
It's far easier to go through the motions of being a rebel than actually be an effective one.
But very emotionally comforting for many people.
-
Crimes are divided into elements. Some elements are mens rea (guilty mind) or intentional acts, others are status. Assault on a police officer, train conductor, bus driver, ect, have that second part purely as status. The intention is to make the prosecutor's/government's job easier and reduce crime by adding uncertainty of additional punishment. While the ability is there, many prosecution offices do express discretion on what charges they chose. If nothing else, many know certain juries would refuse to uphold the charges... just as many known certain juries will almost always uphold the charges. Likewise, Grand Juries for the process is the punishment crowd.
I am against the intermingling of police authority with private security. If nothing else, that lanyard with the badge could have been outside the shirt the whole time. The 'out when I need it, otherwise no one needs to know' is creepy. Assertions of full force of the government authority should only be secret in the rare or never instance; keeping the lines orderly at the PTA meeting is not one of them. I am also against status crimes; put the burden of that element on the defendant and call it a day.
I am with the aura of dissent suppression crowd. He was interrupted multiple times, which made his question that much more scattered, but clearly expressed 'Won't the common core destroy the stand out reputation of the school?' ... Next Question!
The board could have said 'most likely, but without the gov funding attached to it we can't afford to stay in operation.' Infantalizing the voters from hard truths is... well, how we get democrats >:D
-
why do you suppose this mans question deserved to be given higher status than all the other folks? one of the reasons they do that format is to keep things moving. otherwise 100 folks get to listen to some nimrod rant. they/i have busy lives don't care to listen to someone with issues. i don't care how many Gadsden flags he has on his bumper stickers. he reminded me of the guy at back to school nite. teacher finally told him to shut up or get out. and the applause as he left was not supporting him. i'd like to know if he bothered to submit his question or if he just wanted a soapbox. the folks at that forum stayed late fielding questions from the crowd.
hes far from the worst i've seen but i'd have been glad to see him go if i was there.
-
Crimes are divided into elements. Some elements are mens rea (guilty mind) or intentional acts, others are status. Assault on a police officer, train conductor, bus driver, ect, have that second part purely as status. The intention is to make the prosecutor's/government's job easier and reduce crime by adding uncertainty of additional punishment. While the ability is there, many prosecution offices do express discretion on what charges they chose. If nothing else, many know certain juries would refuse to uphold the charges... just as many known certain juries will almost always uphold the charges. Likewise, Grand Juries for the process is the punishment crowd.
I am against the intermingling of police authority with private security. If nothing else, that lanyard with the badge could have been outside the shirt the whole time. The 'out when I need it, otherwise no one needs to know' is creepy. Assertions of full force of the government authority should only be secret in the rare or never instance; keeping the lines orderly at the PTA meeting is not one of them. I am also against status crimes; put the burden of that element on the defendant and call it a day.
Thank you Ned for addressing my main concern from the OP!