Guns And The Laws That Govern Them

@RexRed,

Quote:

David it is the law of the land. It takes two civilians to make a "citizen's arrest"

What is your source for this?
I cant find that law anywhere in the US, so please tell us where you got this.

@RexRed,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

RexRed wrote:

This gives a police officer direct jurisdiction over a civilian and their actions. In the end it is the judicial system that judges if the police and their "direct orders" are ultimately appropriate... If the police officer thought this person was a possible risk to another civilian this also gave this officer "reasonable cause" to detain or obstruct Zimmerman's pursuit. Apparently that was the case by this police sergeant's tone and demeanor towards Zimmerman on the phone...

Apparently Zimmerman was more of a nuisance rather than an asset to the "neighborhood watch". This sergeant's experienced intuition ultimately proved to be correct...

Zimmerman disobeyed a direct order from a "police sergeant" (who has disciplinary jurisdiction over even other officers)...

Rex, b4 I address these points that u have raised,
will u tell us the SOURCE of your information ?

RexRed wrote:

David it is the law of the land.

Please PROVE that by citation to competent authority.
I challenge u on it.

RexRed wrote:

It takes two civilians to make a "citizen's arrest"

In WHICH State??

RexRed wrote:

Yet it only takes one police officer to make an arrest. Think that one through...

OK; so what ?

RexRed wrote:

If you arrest someone it is your word against theirs...
But if you have a second person then it is two people's word against one.

Also the word of a police officer is worth that of two citizens.

"Worth" it to whom, Rex? not to me
Remember that each member of a jury
is free to believe or to discredit any witness who testified.

RexRed wrote:

I think it is because the officer is both a private citizen and an officer of the law.

U have some very strange ideas, Rex (with no disrespect).
The Professor did not tell me these things in Evidence Class.

RexRed wrote:

As for Zimmerman it is his word against himself because he is incriminated by the transcripts of the dispatch call.

"Incriminated" of which crime, Rex ?

RexRed wrote:

To me personally I have always thought of a neighborhood watch as old ladies looking out their windows for anyone suspicious passing by their house and calling 911. Usually one witnesses them committing a crime before they make a call. It is not getting a gun and driving around the neighborhood looking for a black person to confront. It is not assuming because they have a hood and are black they must be guilty of something...

That is neighborhood vigilantism with racial profiling not neighborhood watch...

THIS was why the dispatch told Zimmerman they did not need him to follow them because no crime had been committed.

He did not say that
when he testified; he had no way of knowing
whether the suspect had committed a crime or not.

Quote:

He's BLACK! He must be guilty! (cynical)

Y do u write "cynical" like that?
What do u mean to express, Rex ?

David

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
David it is the law of the land.
It takes two civilians to make a "citizen's arrest"

What is your source for this?
I cant find that law anywhere in the US, so please tell us where you got this.

I join in MM 's request, Rex.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

You go try and do a citizens arrest and the person you arrest denies what you say and that is that because it is your word against theirs... THIS is why it takes two persons to make citizens arrest, it is logic. (Something there is an apparent shortage of here...) This is also why a police officer's word is worth that of two persons... Because they are both a citizen and an officer of the law... I thought I explained that.

If you plan to do a citizens arrest it is advisable that you even take more than two persons with you. This is also why police officers usually have "partners" who can further corroborate their testimony.

This is also why Zimmerman got off scott-free because the only witness who could corroborate the truth/lie that Zimmerman told, saying he actually retreated and attempted to return to his vehicle is a dead teenager...

It is called taking the law into your own hands... Be sure you bring someone else's hands too or you will be caught in a, he said, she said situation and the tables can be turned on the person making the citizens arrest...

1 Reply

@RexRed,

Quote:

You go try and do a citizens arrest and the person you arrest denies what you say and that is that because it is your word against theirs... THIS is why it takes two persons to make citizens arrest, it is logic. (Something there is an apparent shortage of here...) This is also why a police officer's word is worth that of two persons... Because they are both a citizen and an officer of the law... I thought I explained that.

So are you now saying that the law does not say it takes 2 people, but that logic requires it?
That means you are changing your story, doesn't it?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

The law requires it unless you want go to jail because the perpetrator of a crime a wants to implicates you in it... Once again the your question defies logic......

The law is "your word against theirs"??? Does the law require two to make a citizen's arrest?

Life is not always like Perry Mason where the guilty one always confesses in the end of the episode. Criminals would just as soon see an innocent person go to jail rather than themselves.

0 Replies

Lawmaker Leading Call for Arming Teachers Accidentally Shot a Teacher
http://gawker.com/lawmaker-leading-call-for-arming-teachers-accidentally-1216609648

1 Reply

@RexRed,

Shot during a training exercise with a rubber bullet. Pretty amazing title of the article until you read the piece and you realize it isn't anything. If there was one place you would want an accident it is while in training with non-lethal bullets.

On your citizens arrest misinformation, here are a few websites and on none of them do they say you have to have 2 people to make the arrest. It is suggested that if more than one person witnessed the crime to have them available for the police so that they can be questioned. No where does it say that 2 or more people have to be involved, and no where does it say that a Police officers word carries more favor than a civilians.

http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Citizen's-Arrest
http://www.howtolaw.co.nz/make-a-citizens-arrest-xidp392146.html

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

I suggest you try and testify against a police officer and test out your theory...

1 Reply

@RexRed,

You are changing the premise of what you said. It was never mentioned about court and testifying against a cop. This was dealing with a citizens arrest and how the word of a cop is worth the word of 2 civilians. You also stated that it takes 2 people to perform a citizens arrest and you were proven wrong so you change the premise of your argument. What gives Rex?

Do you even know any cops? I was raised by one. No not in juvie, my father is a cop. He has been a city cop as well as a Federal cop. I could ask him for his input and see what he says about the citizens arrest.

0 Replies

Our legal system as it relates to witnesses stems back to perhaps old Hebrew law but it is also easily traceable back to the new testament.

Jesus sent his disciples out "two by two". The new testament is also called the new Torah or new law...

These disciples were witnesses of Jesus' miracles and it took two of them to testify of that fact.

Why did not Jesus send them out one by one?

Luke 10 KJV
1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
2 Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest.
3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.

Comment:
Why wasn't Jesus himself always accompanied by another person? Maybe even 70% of Jesus' encounters in the new testament were one on one. This is a clear indictment on these mega churches and their preachers who rarely ever counsel their followers one on one.

It is said it was the holy spirit with Jesus that accompanied him and bore witness of his testimony.

Romans 8:16 (KJV)
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Comment:
"TWO BEAR WITNESS"
Why is the dual witness necessary?

Regardless, I believe much of our laws regarding witnesses, testimony, jurisdiction and hierarchy of powers are based upon this biblical model of Jesus as it relates to the new Torah.

2 Peter 1:19 KJV
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Comment:
What exactly was it that made this "word of prophecy" "more sure"???

More witnesses do make a testimony more sure... "Word of prophecy" can be translated "witness". Not all prophecy is fore telling most is just forth telling. Prophecy is either fore or forth telling. Moses never really foretold much but was still called a prophet. He forth told...

Once again if you are the only witness then it is your word against theirs.

Justice becomes tyranny when we have a judge and jury of one...

As for the stuff about police, I think I learned it many years ago in grammar school social studies. Just because you can't find it on Google does not mean I am not, in essence, right.

The irony is, why do you need a second opinion? lol Smile

2 Replies

@RexRed,

Did you really just throw a religious argument out there? Wow. Does that mean that in order for someone to be a witness at a trial we need to have more than one person witness a crime that takes place?

So the way things work is like this. If you did a citizens arrest, there would still have to be an investigation done by the police just as there would be for a police officer that arrests someone. You don't just go to jail because a cop saw you do something bad, the same thing applies with a citizens arrest, you still have to go before a judge and have a trial.

Now if the case of the investigation it would work like normal. If the DA can't find the evidence to go to trial, they will not file formal charges with the courts and there is no trial.

The biggest difference between a police arrest and the citizens arrest is that the citizen is not allowed to use force when making an arrest. There is no law for resisting arrest by a civilian. In fact the 2 links I posted for you on citizens arrest stated that the person being placed under arrest has no obligation to just go along with the arrest. I would guess that most people trying to do a citizens arrest are usually assaulted for their efforts.

I tried looking up the stats on citizens arrests, but I couldn't find anything that gave real #'s. I did find an article in the Telegraph talking about the the drop in citizens arrests in the UK. It said about an 85% drop in less than 10 years. It listed 2002-2010 and blamed the "walk-on by" culture. Still the point remains that the laws here in the US do not state that you need to people to make a citizens arrest, although I'm sure it would help the case if they did have more than one witness to the crime, there is nothing that states there has to be.

The 2nd opinion was the equivalent of a professional opinion. Kind of like an expert witness in a trial.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

There needs to be a preponderance of evidence, not just one person making stuff up...

I didn't throw in a religious argument, I said this is where some of our laws are based. Go argue that with the English court and our funding fathers...

Funny how you religious types use the Bible whenever it suits you. Our laws are also based upon the secular age of reason...

Reason has it that you cannot always believe one person's word, sometimes people lie...

Ask Judge Judy...

Apparently in Florida if someone resists a citizen's arrest you just shoot the perpetrator and call it stand your ground... Even if you falsely arrest an innocent person... You can later just lie about it all in court...

1 Reply

@RexRed,

Yes evidence is a good thing, hence the reason I said the police would investigate and the DA would make a decision.

Me religious? Nope. You would be assuming that I'm a Christian because I have a conservative bent? Just some info, I'm not a social conservative. If you like guys, good for you have fun. If you wanna marry one, have a good life together.

That is indeed a sticky wicket. Has anyone been shot while doing a citizens arrest in FL? People lie all the time, are you really surprised to learn that someone has lied? Can you even be a politician these days without lying?

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Well Baldimo, the more you talk about yourself the more sensible you seem...

If we have a disagreement I seem to have lost track of it. I still think automatic weapons need to be kept from unstable individuals and would be terrorists... That is not going to change in my mind. Felons or a history of violence should be a red flag. ALL sales of weapons and ammo should CLOSELY monitored.

Can a citizen attempt to arrest a perpetrator of a crime? They are certainly free to try. Is it advisable? NO...

Before one goes all Angie Dickinson on someone maybe they should try 911 first... Smile

0 Replies

https://sphotos-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1235918_574995339213071_1674558749_n.jpg

0 Replies

@RexRed,

RexRed wrote:

Our legal system as it relates to witnesses stems back to perhaps old Hebrew law but it is also easily traceable back to the new testament.

Jesus sent his disciples out "two by two". The new testament is also called the new Torah or new law...

These disciples were witnesses of Jesus' miracles and it took two of them to testify of that fact.

Why did not Jesus send them out one by one?

Luke 10 KJV
1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
2 Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest.
3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.

Comment:
Why wasn't Jesus himself always accompanied by another person? Maybe even 70% of Jesus' encounters in the new testament were one on one. This is a clear indictment on these mega churches and their preachers who rarely ever counsel their followers one on one.

It is said it was the holy spirit with Jesus that accompanied him and bore witness of his testimony.

Romans 8:16 (KJV)
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Comment:
"TWO BEAR WITNESS"
Why is the dual witness necessary?

Regardless, I believe much of our laws regarding witnesses, testimony, jurisdiction and hierarchy of powers are based upon this biblical model of Jesus as it relates to the new Torah.

2 Peter 1:19 KJV
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Comment:
What exactly was it that made this "word of prophecy" "more sure"???

More witnesses do make a testimony more sure... "Word of prophecy" can be translated "witness". Not all prophecy is fore telling most is just forth telling. Prophecy is either fore or forth telling. Moses never really foretold much but was still called a prophet. He forth told...

Once again if you are the only witness then it is your word against theirs.

Justice becomes tyranny when we have a judge and jury of one...

As for the stuff about police, I think I learned it many years ago in grammar school social studies. Just because you can't find it on Google does not mean I am not, in essence, right.

The irony is, why do you need a second opinion? lol

How is that affected
by the Constitutional separation of Church and state in America, Rex ??

1 Reply

https://sphotos-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/1185140_230576173761203_453911531_n.jpg

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

David it does not take religion or rocket science to understand that the word of two unbiased witnesses of an event is usually better than one... Not everything in the Bible is religious, some sections are just practical things like, "Don't hang you clothes to dry in the rain..." Now you can hang your clothes in the rain to dry if you like...

Many of our laws, codes, customs, oaths and rules of conduct are also derived from Socrates too... It is when people take religious laws and their supposed "God's standards" and hold them up against all science, logic, reason and rationale that we see religion rear its ugly beastly head...

Also, if guns were an inalienable right you would have been born with one in your hand...

1 Reply

@RexRed,

RexRed wrote:

David it does not take religion or rocket science to understand that
the word of two unbiased witnesses of an event is usually better than one...

OK.
That is not usually a legal requirement; (not in any state of which I am aware).

RexRed wrote:

Not everything in the Bible is religious, some sections are just practical things like, "Don't hang you clothes to dry in the rain..." Now you can hang your clothes in the rain to dry if you like...

Many of our laws, codes, customs, oaths and rules of conduct are also derived from Socrates too... It is when people take religious laws and their supposed "God's standards" and hold them up against all science, logic, reason and rationale that we see religion rear its ugly beastly head...

Have I done that, Rex ?

RexRed wrote:

Also, if guns were an inalienable right you would have been born with one in your hand...

(Were u born with a ballot in your hand??)
In Man, the weapon is his or her mind,
whose effects are manifested into objective reality.
Our minds caused us to rise in the food chain (by use of manifested weapons).

David

0 Replies

Guns And The Laws That Govern Them

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know