• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Due process in the US

bruto said:
One of the things worth noting here I think (not sure which of the various threads best contains it but Due Process seems closest...

In at least one of the notoriously public cases we've heard about - the brief detention and arrest of the New York City Comptroller, it is looking pretty clear that the government has found a way to mock and pervert due process. In this case, an immigrant was in the system, obeying the law, following procedure, appearing as required in an immigration court. The government dropped the charge, the case was dismissed, and ICE agents. lurking in the courthouse, immediately arrested the suspect. I suppose there's some loophole whereby this doesn't count as double jeopardy, but it sure looks like a setup. Of course we can't be sure the right hand knows what the left is doing and all, but it certainly seems as if the government has found a way to make "due process" empty and meaningless phrase.
Click to expand...
It's the idea of parallel judicial systems the nazis were so fond of. When the judicial system gave the "wrong" ruling (i.e. the one Hitler hated), the Gestapo were waiting outside the courthouse to grab the "undesirable" and stick them in "preventative detention".
 
Resume said:
How long before someone stands their ground versus these masked ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊?
Click to expand...
Miller &co are probably hoping for sooner rather than later, to escalate the fascist takeover to the next step, and give them the excuse to shoot first and deport the corpse.
 
arthwollipot said:
I was instructed, when I did my civic duty in a court of law as a juror, that in Australia it is legal to use reasonable force to resist an unlawful arrest.
Click to expand...
Sure, but you still get arrested, only now with even more force. And it'll go worse for you if you misunderstood the law.

What I find interesting is that apparently no western nation - including Australia - teaches its budding citizens the basics of applied legal rights and applied legal obligations, as part of their mandatory education.

"You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride." It's almost always better to go peacefully with police, and fight the matter in court.
 
If someone is not showing ID or a warrant, a person should resist. There is already, at least, one case of criminals (other than ICE) kidnapping people by just claiming they are law enforcement. IF they are law enforcement, they should have to prove that they are before laying hands on anyone.
 
theprestige said:
Sure, but you still get arrested, only now with even more force. And it'll go worse for you if you misunderstood the law.

What I find interesting is that apparently no western nation - including Australia - teaches its budding citizens the basics of applied legal rights and applied legal obligations, as part of their mandatory education.

"You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride." It's almost always better to go peacefully with police, and fight the matter in court.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, but let's be clear: This only applies when you are not a conservative. Conservatives can aim rifles at federal agents, occupy state capitals armed with assault weapons, and of course, storm the U.S. capitol in an insurrection and they get treated with kid gloves.

The only people who need to be concerned about violent reprisals from law enforcement are liberals and minorities.
 
theprestige said:
Sure, but you still get arrested, only now with even more force. And it'll go worse for you if you misunderstood the law.

What I find interesting is that apparently no western nation - including Australia - teaches its budding citizens the basics of applied legal rights and applied legal obligations, as part of their mandatory education.

"You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride." It's almost always better to go peacefully with police, and fight the matter in court.
Click to expand...
We do learn some things, but yeah, the intricacies of the application of the law aren't taught except in law school.

In my example above, the judge dismissed the jury to the jury room for over an hour while that particular interpretation of law was debated between the prosecution and the defence, and we were only brought back in to tell us the judge's final determination. We weren't actually supposed to know the details of the debate, only the result.
 
arthwollipot said:
We do learn some things, but yeah, the intricacies of the application of the law aren't taught except in law school.

In my example above, the judge dismissed the jury to the jury room for over an hour while that particular interpretation of law was debated between the prosecution and the defence, and we were only brought back in to tell us the judge's final determination. We weren't actually supposed to know the details of the debate, only the result.
Click to expand...
Ah, so it was a special case, not a normal part of jury instruction. That makes more sense.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Wearing body armour with Police badges.
Click to expand...
Besides, they have learned the right wing lesson well. It really doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong. It doesn't matter if their case is dismissed before trial, or dismissed after trial. They always get away with it. The point is not to win a case, it's to hurt and intimidate people and to make everyone afraid of them. The damage they do is immediate and extrajudicial and irreversible. Acting badly and arbitrarily and lawlessly is not a bug, it's a feature.

The basic right wing strategy is to act so badly that the only way their opponents can stop them is to act worse. Either way they win, whether by getting away with it or by undermining public conscience and providing an excuse for greater tyranny.
 
bruto said:
Besides, they have learned the right wing fascist lesson well. It really doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong. It doesn't matter if their case is dismissed before trial, or dismissed after trial. They always get away with it. The point is not to win a case, it's to hurt and intimidate people and to make everyone afraid of them. The damage they do is immediate and extrajudicial and irreversible. Acting badly and arbitrarily and lawlessly is not a bug, it's a feature.

The basic right wing strategy is to act so badly that the only way their opponents can stop them is to act worse. Either way they win, whether by getting away with it or by undermining public conscience and providing an excuse for greater tyranny.
Click to expand...
FTFY: this sort of intimidation is exemplary fascism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom