Kelly Thomas trial: 'Not guilty' verdicts a blow to D.A.

[Citizen]

deleted. SVG had a better response.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

It appears there was just a few bad apples who decided to partake in another isolated incident in not allowing people to exercise the right to free speech and break up a protest of this murder.

 

[eye95]

It appears there was just a few bad apples who decided to partake in another isolated incident in not allowing people to exercise the right to free speech and break up a protest of this murder.

I agree. There are a few bad apples. These are isolated incidents. The overwhelming majority of cops are good guys. Most interactions are quite lawful.

That does not mitigate the egregiousness of the isolated incidents nor does it mean that some cops aren't thugs who should be arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced.

 

[Citizen]

Suddenly Valley Gunner: Common law wasn't "just how law was made back then", it was how common people protected themselves especially from tyranny of the King's law.

So says you. You've yet to provide a cite to back up this claim. Specifically the "protected themselves especially from tyranny of the kings law".

(chuckle)

When a statist isn't interested in rights, he doesn't bother to read up on history; thus he ends up making ridiculous comments.

I'll provide the cite: forum member User. And, history.

In the Dark Ages and Middle Ages, there wasn't much writing going on. Law was better described as legal tradition or legal custom.

And, perhaps common law was at one time a term used to distinguish from church law. Remember that at one point, the church was pretty darn powerful. In the late 1100's the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Beckett, repeatedly defied Henry II and ended up losing the back of his head (sword stroke by a knight on behalf of Henry).

England was invaded by Vikings repeatedly in the (700's-900's), and sometime during that period, they didn't just raid, but a bunch of them decided to stay. This next is from user: So, English legal tradition includes legal customs brought by the Vikings.

Regarding using the common law to barrier the kings tyranny, SVG is spot on. Magna Carta includes language to the effect that if the king wanted to try someone, he had to rely on the country, meaning he had to use the common law. This was a direct barrier on the king being a dictator and making up his own laws as he went along. Of course, the Norman kings and later still tried, but that was a crucial point. And, Magna Carta, presumably contained quite a few direct statements of common law. I say this because I kinda doubt the nobles at Runnymeade sat down and worked out a whole new legal system.


-------------------------------


Primus' underlying premise is that government is the source of rights. The gaping hole in that premise is that government doesn't have rights to give. We often hear the argument that if government can give a right or privilege it can take it away. Which is true. But, beneath that is an even more powerful question. Wear does government get the authority to give/confer/grant rights? I mean this literally. If a government agent can grant a right, he must possess that right in the first place himself. If he's got it himself, then I must necessarily have it myself, too.

From another angle, that government agent only has the powers delegated to him. He can't grant a right unless it was delegated to him to grant. The delegate-ers couldn't delegate it unless they themselves possessed that particular right in the first place.

Apparently, statists don't think through on their logic too often. That or they hope you don't.

 

[OC for ME]

Therein lies the rub.....arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced.

Thug cops have to be charged first.

The remainder is a process with built in barriers (statutes and case law) to prevent the thug cop from getting to the last.....sentencing. Even if a thug cop gets sentenced the sentence may be disproportionately lenient for the offense the thug cop was convicted of.

It is what it is.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I agree. There are a few bad apples. These are isolated incidents. The overwhelming majority of cops are good guys. Most interactions are quite lawful.

That does not mitigate the egregiousness of the isolated incidents nor does it mean that some cops aren't thugs who should be arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced.

I guess they accidentally broke up the protest without any help or knowledge they would be protected?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

(chuckle)

When a statist isn't interested in rights, he doesn't bother to read up on history; thus he ends up making ridiculous comments.

I'll provide the cite: forum member User. And, history.

In the Dark Ages and Middle Ages, there wasn't much writing going on. Law was better described as legal tradition or legal custom.

And, perhaps common law was at one time a term used to distinguish from church law. Remember that at one point, the church was pretty darn powerful. In the late 1100's the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Beckett, repeatedly defied Henry II and ended up losing the back of his head (sword stroke by a knight on behalf of Henry).

England was invaded by Vikings repeatedly in the (700's-900's), and sometime during that period, they didn't just raid, but a bunch of them decided to stay. This next is from user: So, English legal tradition includes legal customs brought by the Vikings.

Regarding using the common law to barrier the kings tyranny, SVG is spot on. Magna Carta includes language to the effect that if the king wanted to try someone, he had to rely on the country, meaning he had to use the common law. This was a direct barrier on the king being a dictator and making up his own laws as he went along. Of course, the Norman kings and later still tried, but that was a crucial point. And, Magna Carta, presumably contained quite a few direct statements of common law. I say this because I kinda doubt the nobles at Runnymeade sat down and worked out a whole new legal system.


-------------------------------


Primus' underlying premise is that government is the source of rights. The gaping hole in that premise is that government doesn't have rights to give. We often hear the argument that if government can give a right or privilege it can take it away. Which is true. But, beneath that is an even more powerful question. Wear does government get the authority to give/confer/grant rights? I mean this literally. If a government agent can grant a right, he must possess that right in the first place himself. If he's got it himself, then I must necessarily have it myself, too.

From another angle, that government agent only has the powers delegated to him. He can't grant a right unless it was delegated to him to grant. The delegate-ers couldn't delegate it unless they themselves possessed that particular right in the first place.

Apparently, statists don't think through on their logic too often. That or they hope you don't.

+1 Logic is the kyrptonite to statist.

If he actually did what he said and read the cases I presented, many cites are in there too.

 

[Running Wolf]

If he actually did what he said and read the cases I presented, many cites are in there too.

This would require being self-responsible. Many people think their education is someone else's responsibility.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

This would require being self-responsible. Many people think their education is someone else's responsibility.

+1 Lot's of good principles in that short phrase.