When Police commit Murder

Something happened that has raised a serious question i have about our rights and when police murder "suspects" under color of law. Recently, a 16 year old boy was supposedly burglarizing a home when a neighbor called police. 3 Officers showed up, a sergeant and two privates. 1 officer went to the backdoor and 2 went to the front and they instructed the teenager to come out. (This is all coming from the newspaper).Anyway,the officers supposedly&witnessed the teenager dart into the house when they showed up. They went inside (2 thru the front door and 1 at the back), it was dark and the&teenager supposedly rushed at the officers(notice the plural) coming thru the front door&and one of the officers shot and killed the teenager. Now, get this, the police report and the detective at the scene did not indicate whether the teenager had a weapon. The detective did say that there was something "that appeared to be a weapon laying there". Seems like the coverup is just starting. Now, i used to be in law enforcement, and the way all law enforcement officers are taught to apprehend someone is to use whats called graduated use of force. What that means is, you start off with verbal commands, then go to physical force only as a necessity, and deadly force is a no no unless your life is in jeapordy. This obviously raises questions, because the teenager supposedly rushed TWO officers, possibly without a weapon. They definitely had the ability to use physical force to take him down without going to deadly force. Now, with me knowing how the police work and from my experience, they are more than likely gonna cover this up. I want comments about the Constitutional and common law rights that we have as citizens in a situation like this. The only problem the teenager posed was he MAY have given them probable cause under common law because police can arrest under common law when they see a felony in progress. But the& question there is, the officers said the kid darted into the house AFTER they showed up. Man, a Johnny Cochran type lawyer would eat this up. Lastly, if this happened to a family member of yours and the government was acquitted, what type of remedy would you use in private to get restitution. Its not about the money,its about defending our rights to exist, thats whats under attack in this country and around the world.

afa the teen goes - he/she is dead, no more problems there.


however, the party(ies) affected are his/her parents/loved ones - for them it will be a case of "police brutality," i.e., excessive use of force.& they may be able to recover monetary damages to cover the "loss" of the child, and at the very least, give some grief to the officers who wronged them.


i'm not sure there's much that could be done, given the nature of the creature we deal with today.& i'm sure the "department" doesn't see such as murder, and would be really difficult to prove.


not that i'm any learned scholar by any means...


my two cents...


jon

one of the tricks i learned is, there is no law against police brutality. You have to sue for torture, murder. This brings up a point about something else ive been thinking about too the last few days. Lets say you are walking down the street, and a police officer orders you to stop walking so that he can come and investigate you. You have the right to refuse that order, but what happens in everyday life is, they will charge with obstruction of officer, and if it gets ugly, they will throw even more charges on you, like inflicting bodily harm on a officer. Now, this all starts out with you having the right to be secure in your liberty, then, a police officer infringes upon that right and puts you into a situation where you are going to commit "statutory" offenses that the police officer created in the first place. Thats just like the case going on now in the supreme court with the cowboy who refused to give his name to a police officer. Now, this& case im gonna quote is interesting " an illegal arrest is an assault and battery.The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right, and only the same right, to use force in defending himself as he would have in repelling any other assault and battery" State vs Robinson ,72 Atl. 2d 262 (1950). It gets even better, State vs Gum 69 S.E. 464 (1910) takes it even further by saying you have the right to take the life of the assailant to preserve your own life, even if its a PUBLIC OFFICER!!! Now, according to the common law (which its obvious these cases are backing), if you are walking down the street, a police officer pulls up and lets say you take off running down the street, and the police give chase, they tackle you and start punching you and you punch back. According to the common law, you are within your rights, according to the statutory law, they gonna give you obstruction of officer, resisting arrest, inflicting bodily harm unto a officer, etc. What started out as you minding your own business escalated into them turning it around and the police becomes the victim. HAPPENS EVERYDAY FOLKS. Ive had the police pull me over before while i was walking and demand ID. When i told them they were infringing upon my rights of liberty and that there was no law requiring me to have a ID, the lead officer froze because i threw them off with my statements, i then observed one of them place his hand on his gun holster, another officer came up to me and said in a low voice, " look, you are right about what you are saying, but they wanna turn this into something more, so please, if you have a ID, show it to them." This happened in Cobb County Georgia back around 2000. Now, with the education i have now, i know what i would have done in that situation.

kgod,
Your answer is in your post. Consider my recent post under courts, Voids, Law, States and Research.


Jim</A>