EMT's convicted in Elijah McClain's death.

Yes it does and he met the description of the suspicious person call. Why do you want to prevent the police from being able to DO THEIR JOBS. And NO they have no idea if the person is armed until they search him they do not have XRay vision nor does anyone else.

No it is a fact if you go out in public and act like and look like a suspicious person the police may stop you and the can legally do. I don't care if mask and hoodies are "popular" they are popular with criminals. Show me a law that says the police cannot stop and question you unless it has already been proven you are a criminal.

The case did not prevent them from stopping and inquiring about a suspicious person in public.

Does have to be a crime to obstruct a police investigation.

Spare me...........

They don't know if the person is armed until they search for a weapon and this guy attempted to get one of their while he was resisting and refusing their lawful commands.

Why do you want to prevent the police from doing their duty and making sure our streets are safe?

 

It's specious go read the report on what kind of call it was.

Are they to ignore calls about suspicious persons and persons walking around disguised as those who are involved in crimes tend to be?

Yes I know, I don't agree with this lynch mob justice system in which the left so likes to engage and see the results across the country as we are running short of police officers to enforce the laws and keep us safe and I wonder if you and those who defend that every think about the long term.

 

I don't think you know what specious means. Instead of reading the report, I'll do you one better. Here's the 911 transcript. What crime was reported?
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcript...g-911-call-police-body-cam-footage-transcript

What crime was reported that allowed the police to detain Elijah McClain? You can call the question specious if you want, but the truth is you simply don't want to answer it because it requires admitting your point of view is wrong.

Suspicious is incredibly subjective. To some a person walking around with a gun is suspicious, but conservatives hiss and shriek if police make contact simply because a person has a firearm.

It's not a lynch mob. A person is dead because they were walking down the street in a ski mask, and nobody can tell me which law in the state of Colorado or the city of Aurora that violates.

 

You have the report READ IT it will tell you what the call was about as has already been stated in this thread.

To some a person acting weirdly and wearing a mask to conceal their identity is suspicious. Now who is charged with assessing that suspicion to protect the public?

Yes, lynch mob justice as we see more and more when groups threaten cities and towns with destruction if they do not get the verdict they demand the evidence be damned. And when the police do not have the support of the people or the governments they serve what do you think will happen to those police forces and their ability to serve and protect?

 

Who is charged with assessing suspicious activity? Police MUST respond and investigate reports of suspicious activity. That is their duty. Also, it is their sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitutional Rights of the people with whom they interact. A citizen who hasn't broken any law, and is physically in a place he is allowed to be, has no obligation to comply with anything police order him to do. Police have no authority over anyone who has not broken the law.

As for protecting the public: Police have no duty to protect anyone except themselves, and those who they have seized. See USSC Warren v. District of Columbia and USSC Castle Rock v. Gonzalez for the supreme court rulings on this topic.

All that said, Mr McClain unnecessarily escalated his own situation by attempting to flee. He should have just calmly remained stationary and silent.

 

The police can stop you as a suspicious person and if you refuse detain you and require you identify yourself.

Your specious applications of

"Another notable case that discussed the public duty doctrine is Warren v. District of Columbia (1981). In that case, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that the police did not have a specific duty to protect individuals from harm. The case involved a situation where the police had been called to a woman’s home multiple times to investigate reports of a break-in, but they did not take any significant action. The woman was later assaulted by the intruder, and she sued the police for negligence. However, the court held that the police did not have a duty to protect her specifically, as their duty was to protect the public as a whole."
https://savagetraininggroup.com/pub...at discussed,to protect individuals from harm.

Has NOTHING to do with this.

He should have done as the law requires and identify himself and subject himself to the pat down.

Why did he resist and then engage in a physical struggle with the police? Is this what YOU would have done in the same circumstance?

 

I don't need to read the report son. I have the transcript of the 911 call. You're not answering the question of what crime was reported because there wasn't one.

Don't ever visit a ski resort then.

You saying lynch mob justice yet five men killed an unarmed 23 year old who hadn't actually committed any crime. Do you not see the irony here?

You're probably one of the people who wanted the kid who filmed Michael Slager arrested.

Blues has been hit over the head with legal questions and cases throughout this thread. He's been able to do nothing but respond with the typical "what will we do when there are no cops" because in his world there isn't a spectrum between no cops and cops being able to kill civilians with impunity. In blue's world, it's completely binary.

 

Then why are you asking to be shown?

One would not expect a mask in that context to raise suspicion would it. But if someone does report you engaging in suspicious behavior at that ski resort and describs your mask along side your other clothing and the police on the street get the call and find you and ask you to stop for a moment I would HIGHLY suggest you comply and take off your mask and speak to them and give them your ID and quell any concerns about you being a suspicious person. If you do as this guy it might ruin your vacation.

How did they know if he was armed or not?
Why are you accusing the police of killing him they were not charged with killing him and had nothing to do with administering the drugs. See there you go when your case is weak you have to engage in the hyperbole.

Who had not committed a crime and then decided to do so by resisting and fighting with the officers. Pity that young black males seem to be taught to do so and then everyone blames the police.

This ain't about me or any other unconnected case.

I've addressed them all and you dodge my question, if you are going to tell the police that if they are trying to investigate something and people can simply ignore them and walk away even with they are a suspect and that if the police in any way try to stop them then they are going to jail what will we do when there are no cops?

 

When did wearing a ski mask become a crime?

Equal protection under law.

 

Police can stop you for any reason, briefly. Before they can detain you OR require you to identify yourself, they must FIRST have "Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion (RAS)" that YOU have committed, or are committing a SPECIFIC crime. They cannot detain you just because you're wearing a ski mask. I posted Colorado's identify law earlier in the thread that spells out EXACTLY when you are required by law to produce identification.

The police did not have RAS in this case, and because of that the detention was illegal, and because of that everything else that happened subsequently was illegal.

Point conceded. Police as an institution are instituted to protect the public. Individual police officers have no duty to protect anyone in particular, other than persons they have seized.

This was not a Terry stop. It was a consensual stop. The police need SPECIFIC reason to believe he is armed, or his consent, before they can pat him down. He is on US soil, and so he enjoys the presumption of innocence. He also has the 4A right to be secure in his person, papers, and effects. He further has the 5A right to remain silent. Finally, he has the 14A right to due process. All of those rights were violated prior to his negligent homicide at the hands of police, and the EMTs.

I don't know why he did what he did.

Here's how it would have played out if it were me, assuming I, like Mr. McClain, had committed no crime:

I would have stopped immediately when requested, and not given them any reason to touch or fear me, keeping my hands visible at all times. I would have listened politely to whatever they had to say about their reason for stopping me. Then, I would politely ask: "Am I being detained, or am I free to go?" If they responded with ANYTHING other than : "Yes, you are detained", then I would tell them: If I'm not being detained, then I would like to be on my way; I'm not interested in a consensual conversation with you.

If they said I could not leave, I would then be under a de-facto detention, and I would ask "For suspicion of what crime am I being detained?" Any answer other than a SPECIFIC crime that is being or has been committed, and the reason they believe *I* am directly involved in it, means it is an unlawful detention. I would notify them that I believe the detention to be unlawful and ask for a supervisor to be dispatched.

But, regardless of the legality of the detention, once I am in fact detained, I would politely tell them that I assert my 5A right to remain silent and that I want a lawyer present before I answer any other questions. After all, I have no interest or obligation in assisting them with their investigation against me.

Hopefully, the supervisor will have arrived to defuse the situation and let me be on my way, because I committed no crime. But he might take their side.

If so, I would politely make them clearly tell me that if I did not identify myself, that I would be arrested. Only then, would I identify myself; under duress and threat of arrest. I would hope they would take me to jail too, because that would increase my settlement, but at this point it doesn't matter.

After the fact, whether they let me go or they charged me with something and took me to jail, I would file FOIA requests for body and dash cams, radio traffic, emails, text messages, 911 calls, CAD text... everything related to my case. After I received those, I would file formal IA complaints against each of the officers involved. Then, I would file 18USC242 civil rights lawsuits against the municipality and all the officers involved. And if there were more than one officer present, 18USC241 for conspiracy as well.

 

Did I say it was a crime?

 

Well, I just think he has a bit of a misunderstanding about the difference between "power" and "authority", and how police must act within their bounds. It's not uncommon to believe that police can bark orders at anyone and that they have to follow them. A "lawful order" is a command to obey a specific law. Police can order you to dance the hokey-pokey, but that is not a "lawful order", unless there is a law requiring you to do so.

His overarching point is very good, though, and I agree with him 100% on this: It's never to your advantage to flee or fight police. Never. They have the "power" to do anything they want to, and they have dozens of others a radio call away that will back them up no matter what and dog pile you, and they will not hesitate to escalate use of force to whatever level is required to gain your compliance, whether or not they have the authority to do so, and regardless of the severity of the crime they suspect you of. They can, and absolutely will, KILL you to force you into those handcuffs, if that is what it takes.

All this can usually be avoided by remaining calm and non-threatening and conducting yourself as I described in a prior post. Mr. McClain initiated the escalation in force that ultimately led to his negligent homicide. The force used was excessive and unnecessary, but it was initiated by Mr. McClain himself. Police often lack restraint and they often have huge and fragile egos. It's best to humor them calmly, and assert your rights in a submissive and non-threatening way.

There are three basic levels of police contact; consensual, detainment, and arrest.

A "consensual" contact is just that. Police can stop and ask questions of anyone for any reason on any topic. You don't have to consent, produce ID or answer any questions, and can simply walk away, unless the officer tells you you can't. If he does, then you are now detained, and the contact is no longer consensual.

A "detainment" requires the police have "Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS)" that YOU are involved in a SPECIFIC crime that has been, or is being committed. An anonymous phone tip about you being suspicious alone does not rise to that requirement, per USSC ruling. They can't lawfully detain you to fish for a crime, run you for warrants, etc. Words like "I don't know if you have warrants", or "I don't know if you are armed" or "How do I know you aren't about to break into that house" are all admissions that they don't have RAS. They MUST have RAS to legally detain you. A detainment IS a 'seizure' under the 4th amendment, and must be reasonable.

An "arrest" requires that police have "Probable Cause (PC)" that they have concrete reason to believe that you are guilty of committing a specific crime, such that you can be taken into custody, charges made, and brought to a prosecutor.

Mr McClain's encounter, assuming they had no evidence he committed a crime prior to contact, should never have escalated beyond "consensual".

 

Speaking of ketamine.....


https://near-death.com/karl-jansen-ketamine-and-ndes/


Karl Jansen, Ketamine and Near-Death Experiences
BY KEVIN WILLIAMSPOSTED ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2019

 

Because I saw no crime described in the transcript.

Just leave him alone, as he wasn't breaking any laws.

US v DeBerrry. Possession of a gun where legal is not doesn't not warrant a siezure.

I guess you don't see the irony.

If there was no criminal activity afoot, he was under no obligation to submit, and multiple juries have agreed.

If there's something worth investigating they have recourse. If they don't, as was the case here, then they get convicted of felonies.

 

Blues clearly believes if a cop shows up and starts barking orders at you, you have to obey and submit whatever the circumstance. That's not at all true.

I generally don't disagree. In Texas, you can't resist an arrest even if it's unlawful, but in other states you can. The police simply should have let him walk home.

I'm guessing Blues has never been snow skiing. You can't identify anybody while waiting in line for a chair, and if he got to the lifts at 8am, he'd have 911 ignoring his calls by noon.

 

same with carry an ar-15

 

It's not an uncommon belief. Many people think that cooperating with police is required, even if it's not, and even if it's not in their own best interest to do so.

Police behave like predators, if you flee from a consensual encounter, they will chase you, tackle you, taze you, sick attack dogs on you, force compliance on you, even if you have done nothing wrong. They believe that you running is an indication that you're guilty of something. It's best not to do that. You can't outrun them or overpower them, and they all wear a belt bristling with sadistic devices with no other purpose than to torture and kill you with.

In the USSC case of Plummer v. State, Chief Justice McCabe said: "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, [and] is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel force by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self-defense, his assailant is killed, he is justifiable. These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." (emphasis mine)

So, your right to self defense equally applies to defending yourself against unlawful arrest and excessive force by police. But practically, if you think you are going to use lethal force to defend yourself against police, it almost certainly won't end well for you. Your surviving family may eventually win the lawsuit, but that will be little consolation for your corpse. You will be much better served to remain submissive, do not flee, politely assert your rights and use the law to your advantage.

 

Many conservatives deify armed men wearing uniforms. You're not required to produce ID unless you're driving. You're only required to identify yourself if you're arrested in Texas. You're never required to cooperate with the police in building a case against you. I was arrested for DUI once. I got it dismissed. The cop at the station fed me the "if you have nothing to hide, why aren't you cooperating?" line.

In Texas resisting an unlawful arrest is itself a crime. I'm not sure about the case you're citing. The problem with resisting unlawful arrest is half the people arrested think it's unlawful. That being said, Elijah McClain wasn't arrested. He was grabbed within seconds of the first cop arriving. What was the cop's reason? "I have a right to detain you because you're acting suspicious". Everything about that encounter was wrong.

 

So it looks like the ketamine killed him, not the cops.
You know what REALLY killed him though? FAILURE TO COMPLY
What is all this "i intend to take back power" crap he was spewing? Just do as the white people do when confronted by police - COMPLY (obviously be smart about it, don't let them search trunk illegally etc,)
Its a shame. He didn't seem like a criminal or anything. 2 words could have saved him "yes officer"

 

You know what else could have saved him and kept three men out of prison? Leaving him alone and allowing him to walk home.

 

That would have been nice, I agree. I think that would have happened if he wasn't wearing the most commonly used crime disguise on the planet

 

Guns are the most commonly used tools in crimes on the planet. Would you blame person carrying the gun legally in that situation?

I'm a fairly conservative individual, but what happened in this case bothers me to no end.

 

I'm not sure why you are still going on since I actually agree with you that this death never should of occurred, but as people, we are required once we are adults to practice common sense.
For example, I had a cop pull a gun on me in my house (scared the crap outta me) and this was MY fault because I put my hand in my pocket (thats just how I'm used to standing), out of defense they reacted. Another time (being pulled over) I took too long to find my paperwork and was looking in the glove box when he got to the car. Lets say he got aggressive. Again, thats on me, everyone knows to have the interior lights on and hands where they can be seen by the time they start approaching the car.
COMMON SENSE! (of which I did not use during these occasions). They should be teaching COMMON SENSE instead of CRT.

 

"She wouldn't have been raped if she wasn't wearing that sexy outfit. It would have gone a lot easier for her if she had just complied with the rapist." Seems like the same argument to me.

Mr. McClain's failure was to not calmly assert his rights in a submissive manner, and use the law to his advantage. It was the police who used excessive force, and ordered the EMTs to administer ketamine to an unconscious victim who was already subdued and in custody. The EMTs should have refused. Every single actor in this tragedy ****ed up. It started with Mr. McClain himself.

 

I agree with all of that except the rape comparison. Dressing like that DOES make someone more likely to get raped. That doesn't mean its OK. I personally like when women dress sexy but it DOES sometimes invite negative attention, in fact, in some certain religions the rape is justified if too much skin is shown (heck, even an ankle).