Charlotte NC, Police shoot and kill man seeking help after wreck - Page 7
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 92

Thread: Charlotte NC, Police shoot and kill man seeking help after wreck

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Ridiculous. From beginning to end, utterly ridiculous. The Constitution doesn't "give" any rights at all, it acknowledges and protects *natural rights* which many, including the Framers, understood/understand as deriving from God.

    You certainly have no obligation to believe in God, but if you're going to comment on what The Constitution is and/or does, it would behoove you to get at least that much right.
    Blues
    Ok BluesStringer, I made a mistake the Bill of Rights is what gives us the rights we have here in America.

    The Bill of Rights enumerates freedoms not explicitly indicated in the main body of the Constitution, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, a free press, and free assembly; the right to keep and bear arms; freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, security in personal effects, and freedom from warrants issued without probable cause; indictment by a grand jury for any capital or "infamous crime"; guarantee of a speedy, public trial with an impartial jury; and prohibition of double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights reserves for the people any rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution and reserves all powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the people or the States. The Bill was influenced by George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the English Bill of Rights 1689, and earlier English political documents such as Magna Carta (1215).
    The Bill of Rights had little judicial impact for the first 150 years of its existence, but was the basis for many Supreme Court decisions of the 20th and 21st centuries. One of the first fourteen copies of the Bill of Rights is on public display at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.
    Bill of Rights Transcript Text

    The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

    The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

    Congress of the United States
    begun and held at the City of New-York, on
    Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

    THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

    RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

    ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

    Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Amendment II

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Amendment III

    No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Amendment V

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Amendment VI

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    Amendment VII

    In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    Amendment VIII

    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Amendment IX

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Amendments 11-27

    Note: The capitalization and punctuation in this version is from the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda of the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C.
    So while many believe these rights are God given rights they are not because they are Creator rights not God given rights look at the Declaration of Independence posted below. My creator is my mother because if she had chosen a different husband I would not have been born. Your creator is God. So going by the document below we both get the same rights even though we have different Creator but are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights.

    The Declaration of Independence

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

  2.   
  3. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,419
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    See this is the kind of crap that starts getting on people's nerves Blues. You know good and well that your response to him was just preaching to the choir. Most everyone on this forum knows that the constitution doesn't give us anything. That's still just the way we word it. Yet every time someone slips up and words it that particular way, you get all beside yourself because that gives you the opportunity to be a condescending prick and tell us all about how the constitution doesn't give us anything. I don't think you could be a member of this forum and not know that because I'm pretty sure you bring it up in about every damn thread that even mentions the constitution. For God (or god with a little g depending on your beliefs) sakes, we get it!
    I seriously doubt anyone needs you to speak for them, Andey, so limit your comments about your nerves to yourself, please.

    Kasper was basically dressing you down for supposedly stepping on his "right" not to believe when your personal hierarchy of loyalties puts God at the top, where He should be. Maybe you noticed that I "Liked" your reply to Kasper's second post with his fourth "slip up" about what the Constitution does.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    Because the Constitution gives you the right to believe in what ever god you want to believe in or not. If I don't believe in your God or the bible as you do, I do not want you judging me based on your religious beliefs. I can understand why you would want to hold your bible above everything else to show your faith but I think that because the Constitution gives you the right to worship that it should come before your bible. Because without the Constitution your religious beliefs could be banned in favor for some other religious beliefs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    well from my experiences everyone with a bible tells me their God is the true God and if I do not accept him I will go to hell. So yes to me people who put their bible before the US Constitution are usually blinded by their faith in their religion. As I said before the Constitution give us the right to believe in a god or not with out having to hear will will be going to hell.
    And Andey, I wasn't addressing the "choir" at all. I addressed Kasper directly, and I addressed him with the truth of the matter, that everyone in America is perfectly well within his/her rights to put God above all else. In fact, I highly recommend it. How could our rights be thought of any other way considering that the Framers told us in the Declaration of Independence that they derive from our Creator? It sure didn't appear to me that Kasper was acknowledging and/or aware of that fact, so I made him aware.

    I actually thought the "choir" had left rehearsals, and you said you didn't have time to respond to the bulk of my post(s), so I was thinking Kasper and I were more or less alone here. He doesn't appear to have gotten his hemorrhoids in an uproar over it. Why have you?

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  4. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,419
    Oh crap, looks like I spoke too soon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    Ok BluesStringer, I made a mistake the Bill of Rights is what gives us the rights we have here in America.
    Wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    Bill of Rights Transcript Text

    So while many believe these rights are God given rights they are not because they are Creator rights not God given rights look at the Declaration of Independence posted below. My creator is my mother because if she had chosen a different husband I would not have been born. Your creator is God. So going by the document below we both get the same rights even though we have different Creator but are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights.

    The Declaration of Independence
    The BoR and DoI are inextricably connected. Each are as much a part of our founding documents as the other. Whether you call them "God-given rights," or "natural rights," they are contemplated throughout our founding documents as coming from a force higher than man. Both phrases can be found in Supreme Court rulings. Nowhere in SCOTUS rulings can the theory be found that our rights derive from the minds of men. The reason should be clear: They don't.

    The DoI, Constitution nor the BoR "gives" us anything but the set of laws that the Framers considered as comporting with God's and/or natural law. In fact, "natural law" is an axiom that goes back in history at least as far as the Magna Carta (13th Century), and can likely be seen in Greece and/or Roman historical accounts long before that as well.

    Every historian with an ounce of intellectual integrity will confirm that the Framers viewed the documents borne from the Revolution to be God-inspired, God-directed and God's-law-compliant. If you don't like it, you don't have to believe what the Framers believed about the progeny of their works, but you don't get to state "facts" about it within your revisionist history that is simply inaccurate.

    Still think it was a "slip up" Andey?

    Good grief.

    Oh, and for future reference for anyone so tempted, I don't carry on "side discussions" in my PM inbox about discussions that are active on the boards. I consider that very bad form.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  5. Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    I seriously doubt anyone needs you to speak for them, Andey, so limit your comments about your nerves to yourself, please.

    Kasper was basically dressing you down for supposedly stepping on his "right" not to believe when your personal hierarchy of loyalties puts God at the top, where He should be. Maybe you noticed that I "Liked" your reply to Kasper's second post with his fourth "slip up" about what the Constitution does.





    And Andey, I wasn't addressing the "choir" at all. I addressed Kasper directly, and I addressed him with the truth of the matter, that everyone in America is perfectly well within his/her rights to put God above all else. In fact, I highly recommend it. How could our rights be thought of any other way considering that the Framers told us in the Declaration of Independence that they derive from our Creator? It sure didn't appear to me that Kasper was acknowledging and/or aware of that fact, so I made him aware.

    I actually thought the "choir" had left rehearsals, and you said you didn't have time to respond to the bulk of my post(s), so I was thinking Kasper and I were more or less alone here. He doesn't appear to have gotten his hemorrhoids in an uproar over it. Why have you?

    Blues
    Sorry, after his follow up post to both you and myself, I'm a little embarrassed for having spoken for him...

  6. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,419
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    All I've got time to say right now is:
    911 call: A plea for help before police shoot North Carolina man - CNN.com
    Here's your link where you can hear her say that he was kicking in the door. The article, however, says he "knocked" on the door. I call that bias.
    This is actually a very informative link, though I think you're mistaken that it was one of the ones you talked about in class because it's dated 9/18, two days after both of the links that we've been discussing in this thread. Please don't go off the rails because I said you're mistaken though, because this really is the best link I've seen on the subject so far.

    I didn't realize that you did everything on a phone, Andey. I'd just give up and never go online again if I was that limited. To the extent that that fact is the source of any misunderstandings between us, consider them explained now.

    Another reason I doubt that that link was one that you discussed is because I see no way on Earth that the description of the dash-cam video by the family lawyer is helpful to Kerrick in any way, shape, manner or form. This is from the text at that link:

    Chestnut [the family attorney] says the video, filmed from the dashboard of one of the police cruisers on scene, shows a clearly unarmed Ferrell moving forward toward police with his hands out, then panicking as two laser beams hit the center of his chest.

    "Then he gets excited, and he's like -- 'wait, wait, wait' -- and he's coming forward saying, 'stop,' and he goes off camera, and you just hear shots. One, two, three, four...pause...one, two, three, four, five, six...pause. One, two."
    Assuming that's an accurate description of what the dash-cam depicts, Kerrick is toast. As I said earlier, I believed after first reading about the story that Kerrick is woefully under-charged. Chestnut agrees:

    But Chestnut, who watched the video with Ferrell's family in a meeting with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg police chief on Monday, said there's only one way to interpret it.

    "Cold blooded," he said. "Badge or no badge, that's murder."
    It's that "badge or no badge" thing that I have no confidence in when it comes to cops evaluating other cop's actions. If what Chestnut describes is accurate, then whether the viewer is wearing a badge or not, it should be just as simple to come to the same conclusion as it was for him. If he's not accurate in the telling, then he will lose all credibility he ever had or could ever hope to have in the future, and I am not so cynical that I wouldn't acknowledge his exaggerations or lies, whatever, the instant the video is released and I see it.

    I would like to know if you think that is fair, objective and unbiased, Andey.

    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    As per the comment where you said that I supposedly said the article was in favor of the cop...what I said but was not conveyed properly because of my lack of punctuation (forgive me I do this all from a phone so I don't always do it properly), was that I gave an argument, which was based on the articles I read, that was in favor of the cop. My argument was in favor of the cop, no the article. Sorry.
    Alright. Chalk it up to fat thumbs or whatever. Movin' on over here, movin' on...

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  7. Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    This is actually a very informative link, though I think you're mistaken that it was one of the ones you talked about in class because it's dated 9/18, two days after both of the links that we've been discussing in this thread. Please don't go off the rails because I said you're mistaken though, because this really is the best link I've seen on the subject so far.

    I didn't realize that you did everything on a phone, Andey. I'd just give up and never go online again if I was that limited. To the extent that that fact is the source of any misunderstandings between us, consider them explained now.

    Another reason I doubt that that link was one that you discussed is because I see no way on Earth that the description of the dash-cam video by the family lawyer is helpful to Kerrick in any way, shape, manner or form. This is from the text at that link:



    Assuming that's an accurate description of what the dash-cam depicts, Kerrick is toast. As I said earlier, I believed after first reading about the story that Kerrick is woefully under-charged. Chestnut agrees:



    It's that "badge or no badge" thing that I have no confidence in when it comes to cops evaluating other cop's actions. If what Chestnut describes is accurate, then whether the viewer is wearing a badge or not, it should be just as simple to come to the same conclusion as it was for him. If he's not accurate in the telling, then he will lose all credibility he ever had or could ever hope to have in the future, and I am not so cynical that I wouldn't acknowledge his exaggerations or lies, whatever, the instant the video is released and I see it.

    I would like to know if you think that is fair, objective and unbiased, Andey.



    Alright. Chalk it up to fat thumbs or whatever. Movin' on over here, movin' on...

    Blues
    I definitely agree. Now that I've heard about this dash cam video and everyone who has seen it saying that he was clearly unarmed and trying to get helped, there's not a bit of hope for Kerrick. He's toast.

  8. #67
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    Andey, if the officer has every right to get up in our faces to ask questions with a bad attitude, do we also hold that right to get in his face when answering him? Or would that response be taken as aggressive and threatening?

    Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
    “One of the illusions of life is that the present hour is not the critical, decisive one.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

  9. #68
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    Way to read that one post and and not follow up on the rest. So no, that's not my true perspective. Here ya go, this was somewhere right around what you quoted me on (which I don't believe I ever recall saying was the way I felt about how situations should be handled).

    Charlotte NC, Police shoot and kill man seeking help after wreck - Page 4
    I boldfaced the line in your post on my reply that you mentioned that LE have the authority to get all up in your face with attitude...


    The post is #49.

    I'm sorry Andey, I do volunteer with LE, and I'm on the fence with most issues involving LE and whether they reacted badly or not and generally find myself as the lone person in these forums defending a LEO's actions. However, this is not one of those times. This officer is an idiot, he's a jack-booted thug and deserves to go to jail. I've been sitting here keeping my mouth shut as you and Blues have been going rounds, but there is really absolutely nothing you can say to defend this particular officer. He killed a guy that had just been in a horrific crash and who did not have a weapon. Seriously, where is your defense on that? There is none. The cop needs to rely on his force continuum that is supposed to be ingrained in him from his training and from his yearly updates. One level of force above what is shown is all they are allowed. So if a man comes at a LEO with no visible weapon, the LEO is allowed to use: Taser, pepper spray, baton, or some sort of hand-to-hand technique (stiff arm bar, brachial stun, etc.). Lethal force at this point is not justified because the actor hasn't actually risen to the level of a physical attack. To say that any LEO can shoot at someone who is running toward them is just plain lunacy. Please end your argument with Blues, realize that you really never had a leg to stand on, and end this thread.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  10. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Posts
    1,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefighterchen View Post
    Andey, if the officer has every right to get up in our faces to ask questions with a bad attitude, do we also hold that right to get in his face when answering him? Or would that response be taken as aggressive and threatening?
    You have to understand that people who make such assertions generally view the cop/citizen relationship as a superior/inferior one. Not infrequently, the way they portray the relationship is not unlike that of a Japanese soldier vis a vis a hapless Chinese civilian on the streets of Shanghai, circa 1942. I've seen more than a few who seem as though they'd like to slap you across the face for failing to bow to them.

    Returning disrespect with disrespect? It's a good thing that bayonets for Glocks are mostly just a novelty item...

  11. #70
    Give up on it folks. We are all aware that most cops are part of the 95% that give the others a bad rap. Adjust your actions accordingly.......
    A man must do what he has to do, ain't none of us getting out of this alive....I have it from a reliable source....
    There can be no love without pain; to show you the value of love......

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast