Title: kneeling at the edge of ditch, waiting for the bullet Source:
Lew Rockwell URL Source:[None] Published:Feb 7, 2012 Author:Eric Peters Post Date:2012-02-07 09:49:23 by ghostdogtxn Keywords:None Views:1404 Comments:15
great article, other than his concession of the holohoax. But as the author himself ironically pointed out, many people are still asleep or conditioned.
"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you".Sirach 4:28
Forcing the system to confront itself – or at least, making it plain what the system has become.
It has become what it has always become throughout history -- a mega-security system to serve the "elite"...their enforcement of entropy against Freedom. Freedom is entropy to their designs.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Good article. I live in Ohio but have family in south Florida so I can't avoid travel completely. It takes me two days to drive there. I have not flown since they put in the backscatter X-ray machines at Port Columbus. Eventually I may have to. The price of gas doesn't make it any easier. It is cheaper to fly than to drive. I would even consider Amtrak, but thanks to John Kasich, there are no passenger trains in my city. Also, there is no guarantee that they won't use the machines on train passengers. Amtrak takes longer and costs more than flying.
Detentions are shorter in duration and scope than arrest, and require a lower burden of proof.
If I have Reasonable Suspicion that a crime has or is about to occur, and reasonably believe that a person may have information about this, I can detain them for a short period of time to investigate the matter. As part of my investigation, I can conduct a pat down for weapons (if I reasonably believe that they may be present) and seek information to determine exactly what is, has, or will happen. The timeframe can vary a bit due to each set of circumstances, but 20 minutes or so has been ruled to be a reasonable timeframe for detaining someone.
If I have Probable Cause to believe a specific person has committed a crime, I can arrest that person. At that point, I can conduct a complete search of their person for weapons, evidence, and contraband, as well as their vehcile if they are or have been near it recently. I can remove them from the scene and hold them (in jail) for 24 hours or until I get a warrant issued for the charges.
If anyone resists an arrest or detention, I am authorized to use force to apprehend them (in addition, resisting an arrest or detention is a crime, so resisting immediately gives me probable cause to make an arrest).
Normally I don't have to use any "meaningful" physical force to restrain someone I am detaining or arresting. Most people cooperate on their own.
A person can usually tell (with me) because I'll tell them when they are under arrest. If a case arises when I handcuff someone who is merely detained, I will tell them, "You're not under arrest at this time; you are being detained while I investigate what's going on."
Many officers have been taught that an arrest occurs whenever law enforcement creates a situation in which a subject is “not free to leave.” If that was a correct definition, every investigative detention, i.e., “Terry stop,” would be an arrest. Some officers have been taught that if they use any force whatsoever to restrain someone, they have arrested that person. If this statement was true, then an officer could not even grab someone’s arm during a “Terry stop” to prevent him from walking away.
In fact, in terms of federal constitutional law, neither of these teachings is a correct definition of arrest. However, these explanations correctly define a “seizure” of a person. A seizure of a person occurs whenever force is used or a person submits to a show of authority by police. Seizures of persons come in two forms: investigative detentions, AKA “Terry stops,” which require reasonable suspicion, and arrests, which require probable cause.
Arrest as a Federal Constitutional Concept
What, then, is a correct definition of arrest, for purposes of federal Constitutional law? An arrest is a seizure of a person in which the subject is 1) required to go elsewhere with police, or 2) deprived of his freedom of movement for more than a brief period of time, or 3) subjected to more force than is reasonably part of an investigative detention.
So, if an officer has said or done things that would cause a reasonable person to believe that he was not free to leave or to decline the contact with the police and either the subject is required to leave and go elsewhere with police or a detention persists for more than a short while, or more force is used than is reasonable to simply restrain someone, then that person has been arrested. Even if an officer does not intend to arrest the subject, the courts will likely determine that the interaction is in fact an arrest.
Imagine people putting their cars in Park, turning off the engine and turning on their flashers – and just sitting there at East German style “safety” checkpoints. Masses of them. Passively refusing to participate.
Now there is a movement just begging to be started!
"[Ron Paul is] the only one who understands our problems. For the rest of them, it’s like a geography bee — name the country, and they want to fight them,” - Jason Nunn