Post A Reply
my profile
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board
»
Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk
»
!!!!!!!!!! UCLA student stunned by Taser plans suit !!!!!!!!!!
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bdgee: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by permanentjaun: [qb] They didn't beat him. They didn't humiliate him. I can't believe I'm having this debate with you. You don't even know how to analyze the amendments. Amendment V is an amendment that states no one shall be imprisoned for a crime without first being tried. Nor can they be tried twice for the same crime, i.e. double jeopardy, nor be forced to be used as a witness against themselves ("I plead the fifth"), nor removed of life, liberty, and property, imprisoned, without going through the complete process of law. Nor shall property be taken for public use without being compensated for it, i.e. emminent domain. The fifth amendment is for the process after being arrested, not while being arrested. The fifth amendment has absolutely nothing to do with what you are talking about. Don't try to throw amendments at me, especially ones that have nothing to do with the topic. The kid was wrong in not producing an ID even though he had one. He was being stupid. The cops were correct in their procedure up until they tasered him a second time. They can and will be held responsible for excessive force for their 2nd and subsequent taserings. [/qb][/QUOTE]You need to learn some appropriate usages that reach beyond your obvious politically biased overstatements of specificity of a few statements: They did beat him. They did humiliate him. They did torture him. And I am not speaking of or in the sense of the Chaney/Rumsfield abominations of the usage of the word torture that they put forth to make you right wingers think you have a legal or honoirable position after the abuses in Iraq and elsewhere and to cover their illegal actions. Yours seems to be a quite simple minded reading of the Constitution, allowing only those results that your rightwing leanings want to come from the Constitution. It doesn't allow such interpretation. To to paraphrase Hogo Blacks explanation, [i]When the Constitution says "no" it meams no, not sometimes no and not maybe.[/i] Indeed the 5th Amendment does indeed have something to do with this. it clearly states therein that "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...: and to require that a person supply proof that he is not in violation of trespass laws is a requirement that he bear witness against himself. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
Allstocks.com Message Board Home
© 1997 - 2021 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.
Powered by
Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2