Antifa Clash With Police In LA

[Hagar]

What caused this insurrection?

In a LA Spa, had a “women” undress in front of a bunch of (actual) women exposing “her” male genitalia.  Police called and Antifa, waiting in ambush, attack them.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[baddog]

38 minutes ago, Hagar said:

What caused this insurrection?

In a LA Spa, had a “women” undress in front of a bunch of (actual) women exposing “her” male genitalia.  Police called and Antifa, waiting in ambush, attack them.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Hagar, I’ve been saying all along that the police needed to drop a couple of these punks during their rioting. Now antifa is armed and the police need to make a strong show of force. I think they have been armed all along, but the police had to stand down. This isn’t rocket science. With some people, it’s the only way.

[Hagar]

4 minutes ago, baddog said:

Hagar, I’ve been saying all along that the police needed to drop a couple of these punks during their rioting. Now antifa is armed and the police need to make a strong show of force. I think they have been armed all along, but the police had to stand down. This isn’t rocket science. With some people, it’s the only way.

Had 4 or 5 Antifa or BLM Rioters been killed initially, it would’ve not only have stopped the rioting, looting, and burning, it would’ve saved the lives of all killed in subsequent riots.  Allowing anarchist to rule the streets is not acceptable.

[baddog]

1 hour ago, Hagar said:

Had 4 or 5 Antifa or BLM Rioters been killed initially, it would’ve not only have stopped the rioting, looting, and burning, it would’ve saved the lives of all killed in subsequent riots.  Allowing anarchist to rule the streets is not acceptable.

The biggest problem is the mentality that these punks have rights. They do until they commit criminal acts. Then, their only rights are miranda. Of course that’s after they are arrested. It has become somehow illegal to shoot them. Since the police seem more and more outnumbered, it’s time to pull out the equalizers.

TVC can probably shed some light on my opinions, but to be told to stand down (do nothing) doesn’t seem to fit the police’s motto of “to serve and protect”.

[tvc184]

8 hours ago, baddog said:

The biggest problem is the mentality that these punks have rights. They do until they commit criminal acts. Then, their only rights are miranda. Of course that’s after they are arrested. It has become somehow illegal to shoot them. Since the police seem more and more outnumbered, it’s time to pull out the equalizers.

TVC can probably shed some light on my opinions, but to be told to stand down (do nothing) doesn’t seem to fit the police’s motto of “to serve and protect”.

All rights are the same whether under arrest or not. You do not have less rights when you’re not in custody or more rights when you are.

The rights listed under Miranda do not appear because of an arrest. You have the same rights as Miranda sitting there making this post. Those are from the 5A and 6A and say that you have the right to attorney and you have the right to remain silent. The only thing that an arrest does is it requires the police to tell you that you have those rights if you were in custody AND being interrogated. There is  no court ruling that requires the reading of Miranda after an arrest. It only requires the Miranda warning if an officer intends to question the arrested person about a crime. Even if a person states that he wishes to remain silent and/or wishes to speak with an attorney, that goes away after 14 days after the person has gotten out of jail.

So you have the same Miranda rights reading this forum but a police officer does not have to tell you that because he is not questioning you while you’re in custody. Questioning a person about a crime does not require Miranda. Having a person in custody does not require Miranda. Questioning a person while he is in custody does require Miranda or as we teach it, during custodial interrogation.

As far as the motto it is… a motto. It is a general purpose for the police and not a direct order or law.

There are very few laws that require any police officer to do anything. It means there are very few laws that require an officer to act. Probably the most important four words in criminal law are and/or  and may/shall.

The and and or are important either in a single sentence or at the end of a list because it tells you if any one of those items stands alone or if it requires all of the above. An example is that some laws will say a person commits a crime if he does A, B and C. In that case you would have to prove a person did A and B and C or no crime happened. If the law says a person commits a crime if he does A, B or C, it means that any one of those requirements stands alone. If you could only prove B, it is a crime. I think a majority a criminal law at some point has the word and or the word or in the statue.

The other critical words are may and shall. When a law says the word “may” it means that the officer’s  actions are voluntary or discretionary. When it says “shall”, it means that the officer has no choice. There are very few shall act in law-enforcement or criminal law.

 

[baddog]

16 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

All rights are the same whether under arrest or not. You do not have less rights when you’re not in custody or more rights when you are.

The rights listed under Miranda do not appear because of an arrest. You have the same rights as Miranda sitting there making this post. Those are from the 5A and 6A and say that you have the right to attorney and you have the right to remain silent. The only thing that an arrest does is it requires the police to tell you that you have those rights if you were in custody AND being interrogated. There is  no court ruling that requires the reading of Miranda after an arrest. It only requires the Miranda warning if an officer intends to question the arrested person about a crime. Even if a person states that he wishes to remain silent and/or wishes to speak with an attorney, that goes away after 14 days after the person has gotten out of jail.

So you have the same Miranda rights reading this forum but a police officer does not have to tell you that because he is not questioning you while you’re in custody. Questioning a person about a crime does not require Miranda. Having a person in custody does not require Miranda. Questioning a person while he is in custody does require Miranda or as we teach it, during custodial interrogation.

As far as the motto it is… a motto. It is a general purpose for the police and not a direct order or law.

There are very few laws that require any police officer to do anything. It means there are very few laws that require an officer to act. Probably the most important four words in criminal law are and/or  and may/shall.

The and and or are important either in a single sentence or at the end of a list because it tells you if any one of those items stands alone or if it requires all of the above. An example is that some laws will say a person commits a crime if he does A, B and C. In that case you would have to prove a person did A and B and C or no crime happened. If the law says a person commits a crime if he does A, B or C, it means that any one of those requirements stands alone. If you could only prove B, it is a crime. I think a majority a criminal law at some point has the word and or the word or in the statue.

The other critical words are may and shall. When a law says the word “may” it means that the officer’s  actions are voluntary or discretionary. When it says “shall”, it means that the officer has no choice. There are very few shall act in law-enforcement or criminal law.

 

Thank you. Very interesting indeed and I learned a lot.

[SmashMouth]

 

 

[LumRaiderFan]

9 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

 

 

🤣🤣😰😰