Should Citizens Use Deadly Force Against Cops?

[Revoltingest]

I would be surprised if a university could evict a person without notice, I will look into the Michigan laws, and check if there is precedent.

I've seen it happen.

 

[Curious George]

I've seen it happen.

Seen it happen is a lot different than- is it legal.

I would suggest that many groups take advantage of other groups (especially students and young folk) because the latter groups are not aware of their rights. However, there might very well be exemptions for state and city colleges and universities. I just am not sure and it does not sound like something that would be legislated.

 

[Revoltingest]

Seen it happen is a lot different than- is it legal.

I would suggest that many groups take advantage of other groups (especially students and young folk) because the latter groups are not aware of their rights. However, there might very well be exemptions for state and city colleges and universities. I just am not sure and it does not sound like something that would be legislated.

Students have their Tenants Union & Student Legal Services, but the fact that they don't fight
University policy is strong evidence that government (ie, the school) has this authority. But
we're digressing. The fundamental problem is that government exempts itself from many
protections we'd have relative to private parties.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But if you live in privately owned housing

Most universities are privately owned along with their dorms. In public universities, the 4th amendment rights to privacy kick in, whereas "employees of private colleges and universities generally are not subject to Fourth Amendment constraints. In particular, if a search is conducted by campus officials other than campus law enforcement, such as a dean or a residence hall director, and if the search is being conducted to advance valid institutional purposes, then no state action will be found" (source). 4th Amendment rights are not the only constraints in public institutions: "The fact that a university enjoys landlord status with respect to its resident students and their rooms does not license university officials to circumvent Fourth Amendment requirements." (ibid)

Basically, you are better off in terms of privacy and difficulty to "evict" in a public university/college than private, as in private institutions student housing agreements are contracts but tend to include things that allow colleges/universities to get rid of students faster and easier than is possible for landlords in general. Public universities have the same but more. The differences aren't really due to a private/public dichotomy.

 

[Revoltingest]

Basically, you are better off in terms of privacy and difficulty to "evict" in a public university/college than private, as in private institutions student housing agreements are contracts but tend to include things that allow colleges/universities to get rid of students faster and easier than is possible for landlords in general. Public universities have the same but more. The differences aren't really due to a private/public dichotomy.

Nah, tenant protections in private housing are much better.
P*** off the U, & you get the immediate boot...at least in MI.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Nah, tenant protections in private housing are much better.
P*** off the U, & you get the immediate boot...at least in MI.

Allow me to clarify:
Tenants in private University housing have it the worse than those in public University. BOTH have it worse than private housing in general. But as private universities ARE a kind of private housing, it isn't the private/public dichotomy that matters. It's how private universities are still able to basically bypass the rights that would be necessarily granted to tenants in apartments (even those with monthly leases) and similar private housing.

 

[Timidly -Truthful-Seeker]

NOTE : See URL in title.

Have yet to read through the whole thread but I believe if this plan comes to fruition, and the cops are now soldiers following orders though I would as soon give over mythe weapons, in such a case there will be blood. Civil War is coming.

 

[Timidly -Truthful-Seeker]

P.S. Have just been informed, " Duffel blog is a satirical military website. Little to none of what is in that article is true. " What an anti-climatic turn in events! Still doesn't make me believe any less that the powers that be would have it no other way!

 

[Revoltingest]

Arkansas cop tasers woman who refuses to show him her breasts: lawsuit - NY Daily News
Courthouse News Service

LITTLE ROCK (CN) - A city cop in Arkansas chased a woman through her workplace, shooting a Taser at her, because she refused to show him her breasts, the woman claims in court.
Ashlea Bennett sued the City of Haskell, Ark. and its police Officer Brandon Carter, in Federal Court.
She claims Carter "demanded that she expose her breasts to him" after he entered her workplace while on duty and wearing his uniform.
"Carter's demands to the Plaintiff to expose herself to him occurred multiple times," she says in the lawsuit.
It continues: "That the Plaintiff refused to show her breasts to Carter.
"That, upon her refusal, Carter drew his City of Haskell-issued electroshock Taser weapon from his utility belt, pointed the weapon at plaintiff, and threatened to deploy the same against her if she would not expose her breasts to him.
"That, upon seeing the threat of unlawful force, the plaintiff took physical flight and ran from Carter."
Officer Carter then "proceeded to physically chase the plaintiff through her place of employment," the complaint states.
It continues: "That, while chasing the plaintiff, Carter activated and deployed his electroshock Taser weapon in 'drive stun' mode numerous times at or directed at the plaintiff. That Carter did these actions with the intention of causing fear, imminent fear of bodily harm, and/or emotional distress to gain the plaintiff's compliance with his sexual demands."

 

[Revoltingest]

Using the color of authority to coerce a girl to strip naked for his picture album...
D.C. COP Charged with Producing Child Pornography While on Duty

 

[Revoltingest]

I suggest that to combat rampant police assault on
civilians & civil rights violations, citizens should be placed
on equal footing for use of deadly force.
There should not be automatic presumption in the courts
that cops are justified in everything they do, & that their
word trumps all other testimony & even video recordings.
Citizens should have the right to use deadly force when
cops assault them &/or try to enforce unlawful orders.
This is self defense. Consequences can be adjudicated
in court.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here's an interesting case that has been presented
differently by pro-cop sources (Fox News) &
civil libertarians (James Freeman).
Using sources with opposing agendas is useful to
get a clearer picture.

In short...
Cop tries arresting man. Man fights back, strikes
her, disarms her, & fires her gun in a different direction
(which is a really odd wrong thing to do).
Man is acquitted by jury of all charges except for
negligent discharge of her gun.

California man who pummeled, shot at female deputy found not guilty despite video of attack

A California man seen on video taking a deputy's gun and shooting at her has been acquitted of attempted murder. The victim says it sets a dangerous precedent.

www.foxnews.com

 

[fantome profane]

In short...
Cop tries arresting man. Man fights back, strikes
her, disarms her, & fires her gun in a different direction
(which is a really odd wrong thing to do).
Man is acquitted by jury of all charges except for
negligent discharge of her gun.

There were three people involved in this incident.

One of them was unarmed.
One of them was either attacking, or at least threatening the unarmed person with a knife
The third person, who was armed with a gun and likely other weapons, comes in and attacks the unarmed person.

The unarmed person had every right to exercise self defence, and every right to disarm the person with the gun.

Of course the charge of negligent discharge of a fire arm is absolutely valid. The attacker had fled at that point, no need to fire the gun. And even if the gun was fired in a different direction from where the attacker went, there is always the possibility that an innocent bystander could have been hurt. So there was no justification for firing the gun.

 

[Revoltingest]

There were three people involved in this incident.

One of them was unarmed.
One of them was either attacking, or at least threatening the unarmed person with a knife
The third person, who was armed with a gun and likely other weapons, comes in and attacks the unarmed person.

The unarmed person had every right to exercise self defence, and every right to disarm the person with the gun.

Of course the charge of negligent discharge of a fire arm is absolutely valid. The attacker had fled at that point, no need to fire the gun. And even if the gun was fired in a different direction from where the attacker went, there is always the possibility that an innocent bystander could have been hurt. So there was no justification for firing the gun.

Sounds right to me.

I prefer the approach recommended by lawyers.
Submit to wrongful arrest, & leave the fighting
for court.