Open Banana Carry Protest - San Mateo

[marshaul]

imported post

yelohamr wrote:

Back in the early '70's, when Joseph McNamara,who came from NYC, was Chief in KC, MO several officers, who were unhappy with his opinion against shooting fleeing felons (it was legal then)  showed up at one of the shift rollcalls with bananas in their holsters.

Luckily McNamara left KC and went to San Jose.  For several years after he left KC the graffiti on an overpass on I-435 was still visible: "McNamara Go Home" 

Too bad cops can no longer execute people for trying to protect themselves (you know, fleeing danger) in the context of a crime they have not actually been convicted of.

I mean really, just what we need is another way to circumvent the "innocent until" part of the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

I mean, what we really ought to do, is just execute everyone at traffic stops. That way, nobody slips through the cracks. Crime will be at an all-time low.

 

[yelohamr]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

yelohamr wrote:

Back in the early '70's, when Joseph McNamara,who came from NYC,was Chief in KC, MO several officers, who were unhappy with his opinion against shooting fleeing felons (it was legal then) showed up at oneof the shift rollcallswith bananas in their holsters.

Luckily McNamara left KC and went to San Jose. For several years after he left KC the graffiti on an overpass on I-435 was still visible: "McNamara Go Home"

Too bad cops can no longer execute people for trying to protect themselves (you know, fleeing danger) in the context of a crime they have not actually been convicted of.

I mean really, just what we need is another way to circumvent the "innocent until" part of the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

I mean, what we really ought to do, is just execute everyone at traffic stops. That way, nobody slips through the cracks. Crime will be at an all-time low.

I don't know how many felons you know, fleeing or otherwise, but the ones I was refering to were not trying to protect themselves. They were trying to keep their asses from being sent to prison. The fleeing felons are safe now because that law no longer exists.

However, if you think everyone should be executed at traffic stops, you may need some therapy.

 

[dc scarborough]

imported post

The right to keep and carry a banana is not in the US Constitution but the right for legal citizens to keep and carry arms is specific. That means a person does not have to carry a gun, but they can't legally make the government prevent others from doing so. Anyone who does not want someone around them carring a gun has three choices.

1. Work to change the constitution: This requires a super majority in congress ratafied by the states.
2. Have the government break the law and destroy the authority of the US constitution that guarentees our freedom.
3. Move to a country with a constitution that does not guarentee their citizens the right to carry arms.

 

[dc scarborough]

imported post

Does that mean citizens no longer have the right to use deadly force when they are threatened with a felony? Who thinks that a live felon is better than a dead felon?

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

4. Hide under a rock so as to not be offended by people going about their business.

 

[dc scarborough]

imported post

If protecting a felon makes you feelyou morally superior, you are directly responsibility for the harm that felon does to innocent victums.This makes those who disagree with you morally superior.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

SNIP I mean, what we really ought to do, is just execute everyone at traffic stops. That way, nobody slips through the cracks. Crime will be at an all-time low.

YES!! But, roadblocks, not traffic stops. Set 'em up on all roads leading from the state house when the legislature is in session!

Oops. Wait a minute. That would probably be a violation of separation of powers, wouldn't it?

Crime would diminish to an all time low, though, wouldn't it?

 

[yelohamr]

imported post

dc scarborough wrote:

Does that mean citizens no longer have the right to use deadly force when they are threatened with a felony? Who thinks that a live felon is better than a dead felon?

Citizens have the right to defend themselves with deadly force, but when the threat is fleeing, you are no longer being threatened. If you use deadly force now, guess who goes to jail? In CA you are SOL.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

yelohamr wrote:

dc scarborough wrote:

Does that mean citizens no longer have the right to use deadly force when they are threatened with a felony? Who thinks that a live felon is better than a dead felon?

Citizens have the right to defend themselves with deadly force, but when the threat is fleeing, you are no longer being threatened. If you use deadly force now, guess who goes to jail? In CA you are SOL.

Unless the threat is still presenting mortal danger to others, such as if they run up to someone stopped in a car and yell at them to get out of the car or they die...

 

[dc scarborough]

imported post

Is this Tahita hand gun our mascott? Remember that catchy little ditty from the 60's? "Im Tahita hand gun and im here to say, put a hand gun on your serial like this today" It would give the term serial killer a new meaning.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

yelohamr wrote:

The fleeing felons are safe now because that law no longer exists.

Indeed. I kind of got the impression that this fact made you unhappy.

Of course, these days cops use other excuses for spontaneous executions.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

dc scarborough wrote:

If protecting a felon makes you feel you morally superior, you are directly responsibility for the harm that felon does to innocent victums. This makes those who disagree with you morally superior.  

I might agree, except this is clearly an oblique attempt to self-justify authoritarian statism.

Of course, one is not a "felon" until one is convicted of a felony. Hence the ease of my analysis of your apparently out-of-context remark.

 

[Pace]

imported post

Bananas don't kill people, People kill people... and eat the Bananas.

I'm not sure what I think of this protest. It's sorta like marching for peace by sitting on a couch.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

yelohamr wrote:

The fleeing felons are safe now because that law no longer exists.

Indeed. I kind of got the impression that this fact made you unhappy.

Yelohamr,

The law protects the good guys, and the less-than-deadly dangerous bad guys,more than it protects the dangerous bad guys.

In the big picture, the Bill of Rightsprotects the good guys first. That it protects the bad guys is only incidental, and part of the price we pay to keep government somewhat under control. Generally,criminals only affect theirvictims.A government gone bad affects everyone in its jurisdiction.

We too often hearthe complaint that bad guys are let off on "technicalities." Those technicalitiesare what is left of ourrights. If the police or prosecutors screwup by violating a "technicality" (rights),the proper blame is the unprofessionalism or incompetence of those government agents, instead oftherights that protect the rest of us.

Bringing it closer toyour concern, the"law" is Tennessee v Garner. It does not prevent lethal force onall fleeing felony suspects:

Held: The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/471/1/case.html

 

[yelohamr]

imported post

marshaul wrote:
Of course, one is not a "felon" until one is convicted of a felony. Hence the ease of my analysis of your apparently out-of-context remark.


...................................
Main Entry: 1[/suP]fel·on[/b]
Pronunciation: ˈfe-lən
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French felun, fel evildoer, probably of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German fillen to beat, whip, fel skin — more at fell
Date: 13th century
1[/b] : one who has committed a felony2 archaic :[/b] villain


You can be a felon without being convicted, you only have to commit one. After being convicted, you are then a convicted felon. Felony warrants are issued before a trial.

 

[yelohamr]

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

I agree.

 

[dc scarborough]

imported post

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

dc scarborough wrote:

Misfire!

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

yelohamr wrote:

You can be a felon without being convicted, you only have to commit one. After being convicted, you are then a convicted felon. Felony warrants are issued before a trial.

I thought there was something in our US Constitution about due process and being innocent until PROVEN guilty. One is not a felon just because the cop suspects the person has committed a felony.

Besides... there are WAY too many "crimes" that are considered felonies that should not even be crimes in the first place. Many felons never commit a violent act, and don't present a danger to anybody when fleeing. Is it truly just to take the life of a non-violent criminal? I think not. And I don't trust any person (LEO or not) to be judge, jury, and executioner.