I suppose that makes sense. I didnt turn up sound. to me it looked like an unarmed man advancing and i think that on a street you can do that. He did not look to me like he was projecting a violent intent.
it reminded me of a drunk at a bar saying hit me in a way to start a fight.
I would be scared to shoot him and be tried as a civillian, but, I can see the point you are making. I the police should be able to stand ground.
i think the police are an unconstitutional private army that belongs to the mayor. but for sake of argument lets say its a sherrif deputy telling me that....I can respect the sheriff's deputy's power to give me a lawful order.
my question is... can I tell someone not to advance on my front yard.. and respond with force if they do against my order.
the sherif is a publicly elected office which makes the sheriff and his deputies a public army as opposed to a private army.
city police dept's answer to the mayor and that makes them a private army that belongs to the mayor. That is not the system our founding father imagined.
how does attacking me address the valid point that i made?
It doesn't fucking matter anymore dude, can't you see. I once shared your values, but not any more, this just isn't how the game is being played with BLM/ANTIFA.
the context we are missing from this clip could explain it. And, although they (cops) are not allowed to use it, common sense would tell you that the look on that man's face and his posturing cannot lead to anything good whatsoever. If he was coming at your kid like that, would you wait until he "did something" to intervene? No, because common sense tells you he wants to fuck all yalls shit up.
Once police declare an unlawfully assembly aka a riot, anyone in the area not leaving is subject to arrest. Basically we can detain/arrest anyone but we go after the biggest agitator's which would be this dumbass.
i think that a guy without a ranged weapon should be able to speak his mind. but i dont know the full context. it looked like he was on a public street and he did not have hands in pocket.
that being said they let him walk pretty close before hititng him with the mace. he was probably closer than it looked like from the camera.
No, any type of force is force. There are varying levels of force, ranging from verbal commands to deadly force. The amount of force must suit the threat being presented to the officer. The man wasn’t obeying verbal commands, so the police had to escalate. Mace is a very effective next step that will compel compliance with the verbal orders being given without disfiguring or possibly killing the person.
Everyone should remember that as soon as someone does not obey a lawful order, police are allowed to escalate to the next appropriate level of force (that could be mace, a baton, or a firearm) to compel compliance.
The video showed the man getting pepper sprayed + getting arrested.
I think pepper spraying the man and letting him walk away as he was clearly unable to function would have better.
i imagine the dude got a nasty charge. and nasty charges prevent people from getting jobs, and unemployed people cause crime.
that being said... i support the cops using non lethal force to de-esclate the situation.
First, a disclaimer that this question would be best answered by someone living in NC, preferably someone with law enforcement background from NC.
That said, there are a couple distinctions. Every person has the right to defend themselves. Only law enforcement officers can give lawful orders though. Therefore, an individual doesn’t have the right to use force based solely on telling someone to do something and them not complying, especially if that person is not on their property.
If someone is threatening you or your family’s lives, you can defend yourself using deadly force. Individuals will of course be asked the circumstances of what happened to lead up to killing an intruder to verify it was self defense and not murder. Any person who harms someone on their property should be able to verbalize what the threat was to justify their actions.
My understanding of castle doctrine or castle law is that it actually helps protect the person defending themselves. It helps enforce the fact that a person had a right to stand their ground against an intruder while in their home or car. It acts oppositely of laws in certain cities or states that mandate a person run away from an intruder instead of protect their property (this is why store owners in some cities haven’t been able to defend their stores).
Hope this helps clarify. It’s kind of apples and oranges comparing what happened in this video to an individual defending themself or their property.
He sounds like he has some mental issues. He has tons of willpower directed towards self destruction.
And way he reacted to the pepper spray like nothing...on drugs.
He was still trying to act tough but didn't know what to do.
Life comes at you fast...
Every centipede should carry a big can of bear spray.
Up this straight to the top 🇺🇸
That pepper spray made him turn almost orange. Is this what they mean when they say orange man bad?
lol
Careful what you wish for.
This guy was for sure let out in the "no bail" system.
crisis actor pays what?
SPLOOSH!!!
all on ya FACE!
Oblivion npc conversations?
I'm sure I saw this guy up at that CHAZ in Seattle
got em.
that being said.... how did an unarmed man speaking justify the use of force?
I suppose that makes sense. I didnt turn up sound. to me it looked like an unarmed man advancing and i think that on a street you can do that. He did not look to me like he was projecting a violent intent.
it reminded me of a drunk at a bar saying hit me in a way to start a fight.
I would be scared to shoot him and be tried as a civillian, but, I can see the point you are making. I the police should be able to stand ground.
No, you can’t advance where the police are telling you you can’t.
i think the police are an unconstitutional private army that belongs to the mayor. but for sake of argument lets say its a sherrif deputy telling me that....I can respect the sheriff's deputy's power to give me a lawful order.
my question is... can I tell someone not to advance on my front yard.. and respond with force if they do against my order.
That makes you really fucking stupid
The constitution bans private armies.
the sherif is a publicly elected office which makes the sheriff and his deputies a public army as opposed to a private army.
city police dept's answer to the mayor and that makes them a private army that belongs to the mayor. That is not the system our founding father imagined.
how does attacking me address the valid point that i made?
The mayor is also publicly elected. Based on your definition above, that means city police are a “public army.”
Also, yes, if people are threatening your safety and trespass on your private property you can use force.
It doesn't fucking matter anymore dude, can't you see. I once shared your values, but not any more, this just isn't how the game is being played with BLM/ANTIFA.
the context we are missing from this clip could explain it. And, although they (cops) are not allowed to use it, common sense would tell you that the look on that man's face and his posturing cannot lead to anything good whatsoever. If he was coming at your kid like that, would you wait until he "did something" to intervene? No, because common sense tells you he wants to fuck all yalls shit up.
Once police declare an unlawfully assembly aka a riot, anyone in the area not leaving is subject to arrest. Basically we can detain/arrest anyone but we go after the biggest agitator's which would be this dumbass.
From a calipede
i think that a guy without a ranged weapon should be able to speak his mind. but i dont know the full context. it looked like he was on a public street and he did not have hands in pocket.
that being said they let him walk pretty close before hititng him with the mace. he was probably closer than it looked like from the camera.
from my point of view, i can only justify force when i fear for my life; i think its hard to make the point that man is threatening their well being.
No, any type of force is force. There are varying levels of force, ranging from verbal commands to deadly force. The amount of force must suit the threat being presented to the officer. The man wasn’t obeying verbal commands, so the police had to escalate. Mace is a very effective next step that will compel compliance with the verbal orders being given without disfiguring or possibly killing the person.
Everyone should remember that as soon as someone does not obey a lawful order, police are allowed to escalate to the next appropriate level of force (that could be mace, a baton, or a firearm) to compel compliance.
i can agree with that.
The video showed the man getting pepper sprayed + getting arrested. I think pepper spraying the man and letting him walk away as he was clearly unable to function would have better.
i imagine the dude got a nasty charge. and nasty charges prevent people from getting jobs, and unemployed people cause crime.
that being said... i support the cops using non lethal force to de-esclate the situation.
curfew and run away slave laws both have the same level of legitemency.
i hope he got a misdemeanor.
Also though as a private citizen ida like to kill him for advocating communism.
They have asked him to move back, he disobeyed a lawful order. He is putting them in danger.
that makes sense.
can i give a lawful order to make an agitator retreat on my property?
My state has castle law.
You cannot give a lawful order - you are not a police officer.
if i tell someone to not get closer on my property, and they do, can i respond with force?
nc, with castle law.
I hope it doenst come to that. thanks for the clarification.
First, a disclaimer that this question would be best answered by someone living in NC, preferably someone with law enforcement background from NC.
That said, there are a couple distinctions. Every person has the right to defend themselves. Only law enforcement officers can give lawful orders though. Therefore, an individual doesn’t have the right to use force based solely on telling someone to do something and them not complying, especially if that person is not on their property.
If someone is threatening you or your family’s lives, you can defend yourself using deadly force. Individuals will of course be asked the circumstances of what happened to lead up to killing an intruder to verify it was self defense and not murder. Any person who harms someone on their property should be able to verbalize what the threat was to justify their actions.
My understanding of castle doctrine or castle law is that it actually helps protect the person defending themselves. It helps enforce the fact that a person had a right to stand their ground against an intruder while in their home or car. It acts oppositely of laws in certain cities or states that mandate a person run away from an intruder instead of protect their property (this is why store owners in some cities haven’t been able to defend their stores).
Hope this helps clarify. It’s kind of apples and oranges comparing what happened in this video to an individual defending themself or their property.