thetragichippy

I haven’t had time to read the entire case. I did read that part of the evidence being from an unlawful search was due to the warrant being very specific on what could be searched and the lawyers’ personal property wasn’t listed.
But, there is more than one way to skin a cat.
 That case was from a US district court in AL. Unless it went farther up the line (past the 11th Circuit to SCOTUS), it generally has no legal standing outside of that district. 

DING DING DING DING!!!
Yep, you can’t lawfully resist an unlawful arrest… in Texas and probably most other states.
Not complying can be a crime, even if you are later found to be innocent of the original detention or arrest.

That is why I (and maybe one of the few)  find this interesting.  We obviously don’t have to agree with laws or case laws/rulings but they are the law.
I know my rights!! might show that we don’t know as much as Facebook and YouTube make us think we know.
Comply, deny consent, remain silent and argue later. 

According to the US Supreme Court (in GA v. Randolph), if one party is physically present and objects to a search, even if another consents, such a search would then be unconstitutional.

This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up

All joking aside, those old people will kill you.  
I worked in an auto center when I was college and one day this really old guy came in and wanted his battery replaced for free because he hadn't had it that long.  We walked out to his truck and the battery obviously came from one of our competitors.   I explained that we could definitely test it and replace it if necessary, but he'd probably have better luck at Walmart where it came from.   This guy went from 0-100 in a flash.  He started furiously digging in his glovebox and the look on his face told me that he wasn't trying to find a receipt.  I dipped back indoors. 
They helped him jumpstart his truck and he left, and about 45 minutes later his son called and wanted to apologize... said that his dad came home looking for a gun and they took his keys away. 
Those really old people lose their ability to reason things out. 

Why wasn't she arrested???

This was great

We have come a long way from Christine Jorgensen. Thought they were few and far between. Now they’re everywhere. Should have enough for singles sports. Not sure about team sports. 

They should create a transgender league. 

That’s good thinking. I did well under Trump with my 401K. I was in high risk. Glad I pulled it all out before Biden robbed it all.

Entry without consent must be bases on probable cause/PC (not reasonable suspicion).
To enter (or search) based on PC but without a warrant there must be exigent circumstances.
PC has several but virtually identical definitions/interpretations. It is articulable facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time of a search (or arrest), to which the officer has reasonably trustworthy information, that would make a reasonable person believe that a crime is about to be or has been committed.
Basically it could be said, what would a reasonable or a cautious man believe if he had the same facts as the officer and with the same knowledge as the officer? Would this reasonable person believe that it is “probably” true?
In this particular case, officers in Kentucky had probable cause to believe that a man just sold cocaine to an undercover. A foot chase ensued and the officer turned the corner and found two doors. On one side there was no sound and no odor but on the other there was the odor of marijuana and upon knocking on the door (which is obviously legal), there was bumping and noises as if somebody might have been getting ready to escape or get rid of drugs, etc.
 The officer only being a few seconds behind the suspect knew that he had to be in one of two apartments. One was silent with no odor and in the other he heard noises and could smell marijuana.
The question becomes, would a reasonable person believe that a suspect who they just sold drugs and fled on foot was in the apartment with all kinds of noises and the smell of marijuana?
The US Supreme Court overruled the Kentucky SC in an 8-1 decision and said the officer had probable cause to enter without a warrant. Remember that “probable” is a likelihood and  not a guarantee. 
 

This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up

Never more than 3….  
 When I was on patrol I carried 6 weapons… not all firearms (2).

It only took a few months of concealed carry to notice myself going to places or stoping at places I normally wouldn't without a gun.  The caution or fear I would of had to make me reconsider was erased by the fact I had a gun. 
Once I realized what I was doing I stopped.  I was putting myself in situations that legally were OK, but still risky at best......because my worse fear is actually having to shoot someone. I quoted that statement because that should be in a movie, not in real life. 

Oh yeah, if you are talking about an off duty officer in Orange (not to re-litigate that case), I read the something like 20+ witness statements and a majority (all but a couple) say that it was more than words.
Also, as the topic of this thread about complying, the officer in Orange was cleared most likely due to those witness statements. Just like the false claims (completely bogus) of Michael Brown and “hands up, don’t shoot”… complying in 99.999% (probably more) of cases will keep a person alive. 

Which goes to the OP. Do what you are told.
In this video the officer was polite and professional for quite a while.  The guy should have simply complied. He refused and then resisted arrest. 
 The Facebook, YouTube, Google lawyers get people killed. That is why I posted Supreme Court cases.  When the Supreme Court looks at a man having a diabetic crisis and the cops kind of kick the crap out of him (and I think broke his foot) and unanimously say… oh well, he should have complied!….. people should heed that warning.
 
 

This is also true. "Some" and "usually" are hard to argue against. But as the original post stated, better to fight in the court room with paper and pen than against the guy with a rifle around his body.
I've not seen a defendant approach the bench and be gunned down in front of a jury. I have seen off duty officer shoot a man dead in the chest at point blank range for words. Words, not actions.
I still believe the majority of officers have the best intentions. Some just have a bad day, or attitude, or any number of other things that could affect the spilt-second decision to end a life with one squeeze of the trigger.
Once again, a judge with a grudge has never been charged with murder because of actions inside their courtroom. I could be wrong, but it's more common on the streets.

On the use of force, according to SCOTUS it doesn’t matter what the totality of circumstances are when determining if an officer was justified in any use of force situation. In other words it doesn’t matter what actually happened but it matters what a reasonable officer would believe at that moment. It is the term “objective reasonableness”. An officer has to make a split second decision and what a situation reasonably appeared to be matters. If it later turned out to be incorrect, the officer will still likely be cleared.
 In the main case (Graham)the police kind of roughed up a guy who turned out to be completely innocent and in fact was having a medical crisis. The SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that what was later (like a few moments later) discovered didn’t matter, only what a reasonable officer would believe. 

You cannot compare PPP to welfare.......
1.   PPP was based on previous payroll of your business.....plus you could pay up to 20% to pay rent. 
2.   PPP was not forgiven if you fired anyone or did not use the funds as agreed to. 
3.  The government did not force/demand people not to work who are currently on welfare. 
4.  Welfare recipients don't have a business to keep running when the Government decided to let you come back to work.
 
I could go on and on, but comparing the two as the same is dishonest at best.  

What would you do if your income was stopped for a couple years? Deplete your savings or sell your home and cars? 

What would you do if your income was stopped for a couple years? Deplete your savings or sell your home and cars? 

You cannot compare PPP to welfare.......
1.   PPP was based on previous payroll of your business.....plus you could pay up to 20% to pay rent. 
2.   PPP was not forgiven if you fired anyone or did not use the funds as agreed to. 
3.  The government did not force/demand people not to work who are currently on welfare. 
4.  Welfare recipients don't have a business to keep running when the Government decided to let you come back to work.
 
I could go on and on, but comparing the two as the same is dishonest at best.  

I miss my dear friend every day.

I agree - I wouldn't expect them to not defend themselves, that's why I said - I'd say that to. 

Ya'll sure are excited only hearing one side........It seems Fox will play this out in court and not on setxsports or Social Media......
“There will be a lot of noise and confusion generated by Dominion and their opportunistic private equity owners, but the core of this case remains about freedom of the press and freedom of speech, which are fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution and protected by New York Times v. Sullivan. Dominion has mischaracterized the record, cherry-picked quotes stripped of key context, and spilled considerable ink on facts that are irrelevant under black-letter principles of defamation law,” the network said.

Kill them with facts. Lmao. Democrats believe in free speech to present your side until they come to the realization that there is indeed another side.