The police did their job by what they had to go on at the time they arrived. Mistakes happen sometimes when forced to act on the fly all the time, thats why there are investigations. So by your logic if someone beat the hell out of you then the police shouldnt arrest the guy until they have video proof that the guy and act in question is what you say it was so a mistake wount be made. Your "Heads should roll" statement over what they did is so ignorant.
I will let you know if the judge agree's with you. IF it goes that far. And would you feel the same way if it was a loved one of yours . and by your logic if I say you beat the hell out of me. do you want the police to ''act on the fly'' show up at your house and arrest you? I bet you would want them to do a little investigating to see if it was actually you
I will let you know if the judge agree's with you. IF it goes that far. And would you feel the same way if it was a loved one of yours . and by your logic if I say you beat the hell out of me. do you want the police to ''act on the fly'' show up at your house and arrest you? I bet you would want them to do a little investigating to see if it was actually you
You're confusing "probable cause" to make an arrest with the rest of the judicial process, when it's a separate entity all togather. Police can make an arrest and then later release the individual without ever charging them, it doesn't make the arrest "unlawful" or a violation of civil rights.
____________________________________
'01 Cobra-twin turbo, Art Carr 4R70W
'06 Trailblazer SS AWD-car seat and groceries
You're confusing "probable cause" to make an arrest with the rest of the judicial process, when it's a separate entity all togather. Police can make an arrest and then later release the individual without ever charging them, it doesn't make the arrest "unlawful" or a violation of civil rights.
and they can aslo give them a notice to appear aswell. correct?
and they can aslo give them a notice to appear aswell. correct?
I'm not 100% on what florida does, but in Illinois in a formal arrest (actually taken to the pd and processed) the defendant is either bonded out after processing and given a court date or shipped to district lockup where bond is set by a judge. In felony cases they are always shipped to district lockup where bond is set by a judge. FordSVTFan would know better than I would on Florida procedure. Since you stated he was arrested for "felony assault" he would have to appear in front of a judge for bond to be set, which would be followed by a probable cause hearing a few weeks later (to decide to go forward with the charges or not). At least that's how it is here in IL.
I didnt even realize you were from IL my fiancee is from Decator which is a couple hours south I think. We are going to Il in Dec. so she can visit family.Im going to try to get up to chicago and visit so e of the F.D'S
While that youtube video is not me. The photo posted of you is actually you.
And like I said before...I bow down to your googling skills at finding a photo on one of the most popular social networking sites out there using my "internet moniker". Great job sport!
____________________________________
Black and red is the fastest color.
I didnt even realize you were from IL my fiancee is from Decator which is a couple hours south I think. We are going to Il in Dec. so she can visit family.Im going to try to get up to chicago and visit so e of the F.D'S
Cool, yea it's a little ways south of here. If you're looking for anything fun to do and want a few suggestions hit me up with a pm.
and they can aslo give them a notice to appear aswell. correct?
We have that here but its called a "Field arrest" or "Field bond." That means your STILL arrested and get a court date but we allow you to sign your own bond on the spot and not make you go to jail to make bond but we only use this on very few things, Mainly minor warrants and NEVER in a case where people are in a dispute. Im not being a hardass or smartass to you, Just trying to show you what we are required to do in certain situations.
and they can aslo give them a notice to appear aswell. correct?
In Fla. a police officer can give a person who committed an arrestable misdemeanor a notice to appear (on a citation) and that is an arrest, just not a custodial one.
And like I said before...I bow down to your googling skills at finding a photo on one of the most popular social networking sites out there using my "internet moniker". Great job sport!
Interesting come back, because your facebook account is not under "Vankuen."
Are you ready to talk more about Torts, Legal Theory, or Law Enforcement? Three things you know nothing about.
Yes....but doing the search on google yields results that would have taken a mentally challenged person all of 5 seconds to find out who I was. I shouldn't have to tell you that though because I'm sure that in addition to being an LEO, Attorney, and general asshole, you're a PI too. I've got nothing to hide otherwise I wouldn't have voluntarily put my information into that old myspace database in the first place dimwit. Waaaiit. Are you looking at my personal information that I had to put into the forum's database? C'mon now what's your secret funny guy?
I'm done arguing with you unless you want to try and explain how assault and/or battery are not an intentional tort? Unless you rewrite the books you can't. Besides, you're probably not even a licensed or practicing attorney like you say you are. If so what's your area of law? It's obviously not assault and battery.
This will not turn out well for you. Perhaps you should take the time out and go read the rules of the forum again, twice. And no I am not a mod ..but I foresee a ban in your near future google told me so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vankuen
Yes....but doing the search on google yields results that would have taken a mentally challenged person all of 5 seconds to find out who I was. I shouldn't have to tell you that though because I'm sure that in addition to being an LEO, Attorney, and general asshole, you're a PI too. I've got nothing to hide otherwise I wouldn't have voluntarily put my information into that old myspace database in the first place dimwit. Waaaiit. Are you looking at my personal information that I had to put into the forum's database? C'mon now what's your secret funny guy?
I'm done arguing with you unless you want to try and explain how assault and/or battery are not an intentional tort? Unless you rewrite the books you can't. Besides, you're probably not even a licensed or practicing attorney like you say you are. If so what's your area of law? It's obviously not assault and battery.
Example of proper escalation, as described previously. Though really they did him a favor by trying pepper spray first since he had a knife the whole time. Notice paramedics were there immediately to treat the shooting victim; hardly a shoot to kill scenario.
This will not turn out well for you. Perhaps you should take the time out and go read the rules of the forum again, twice. And no I am not a mod ..but I foresee a ban in your near future google told me so.
I understand that. Granted, there were a few adjectives there that were unecessary, and a few side conversations that could have been left out, but when the other party is acting the exact same way and doing the exact same things...unless he's one of those cops that thinks he's above the law (even the laws of this forum) than I'd expect one of two things to happen....either we both get banned or the conversation ends/thread gets closed for lack of continued benefit to anyone.
I'm done with him. I just can't stand narcisstic people who feel they are above everyone else. This guy is one of them and there's an entire internet history to back it up.
And yes...I do understand the definition of asssault. Do you think that people that aren't LEO's are ignorant of the law? Apparently so. Its true that the kids may have been experiencing apprehension thinking that the shopkeeper might have wanted to do them bodily harm when they were trying to get away, but there's good reason...they committed an assault and battery against the shopkeeper and as such he also suffered a tort--the kids had a duty owed, that duty was breached, a loss was incurred by the shopkeeper. Simply following someone to get their license plate is hardly an assault...especially when he was within his rights to do so in order to stop a crime from successfully taking place. At most it might have been wreckless driving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vankuen
First you argue about semantics, then all you did was repeat was I said on assault and battery, which btw no one said assault was a lessor form of battery. As far as tort is concerned....wtf do you think are the elements of tort? Duty owed, duty breached, loss incurred. The kids had a duty to pay for the items, they stole the item, and a financial loss was incurred by the shopowner. You must be a lawyer because you're only good at highlighting what you think will make everyone think you're right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FordSVTFan
Not really. I am simply correcting your inaccuracies and you dont like it.
You obviously dont understand that there are different types of torts. There are three possible bases for tort liability:
A. Intentional Conduct
B. Negligent conduct that creates an unreasonable risk of causing harm.
C. Conduct that is the neither intentional nor negligent but that subjects the actor to strict liability because of public policy. Battery is an intentional tort. Therefore there is no duty owed. A duty owed is an element of negligence not an intentional tort. The elements for the tort of Battery are: Act, Intent, Contact, and Causation. NO DUTY!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by vankuen
I'm done arguing with you unless you want to try and explain how assault and/or battery are not an intentional tort? Unless you rewrite the books you can't. Besides, you're probably not even a licensed or practicing attorney like you say you are. If so what's your area of law? It's obviously not assault and battery.
I am the one that distinguished Assault and Battery as an Intentional Tort. You are the one, as referenced above, that stated the elements of a Battery are a Duty Owed, a Breach of that Duty, and Damages. That is not even close to accurate. You are describing the elements of Negligence, NOT an intentional battery.
I am the one that distinguished Assault and Battery as an Intentional Tort. You are the one, as referenced above, that stated the elements of a Battery are a Duty Owed, a Breach of that Duty, and Damages. That is not even close to accurate. You are describing the elements of Negligence, NOT an intentional battery.
Please stop while you are far behind.
Noooo....as stated above I was the one that stated that what happened was assault and battery. However I did confuse the duties from negligence with intentional tort. I broke out the big ass book today to review it. Sooo yea, I was wrong from the duty owed, duty breached, etc, aspect.
Though my opinion of you hasn't changed. From all the crap I found on you, it seems most people agree with that opinion.
Noooo....as stated above I was the one that stated that what happened was assault and battery. However I did confuse the duties from negligence with intentional tort. I broke out the big ass book today to review it. Sooo yea, I was wrong from the duty owed, duty breached, etc, aspect.
Though my opinion of you hasn't changed. From all the crap I found on you, it seems most people agree with that opinion.
Hey, new guy... just drop it, man, move on with your life. You're picking a fight with a highly-respected, long-time member of this board in his backyard. You have 44 posts and no credibility associated with the subject matter. As Adam said, stop digging yourself into that hole before it's too big to climb out of.
____________________________________ 1994 GT Vert - SOLD 2001 Cobra Vert - SOLD 2003 Cobra Coupe - OXFORD WHITE - RIP
I didn't "pick" the fight. I simply stated an opinion early on and he decided to chime in, I responded. Rinse and repeat several times and here we are.
Out of curiosity, exactly what "hole" is it that you're referring to that would be so catastrophic that it would pose any detriment to me in life? I mean seriously, its an internet forum.
Either way I'm done. I guess next time I'll just use wikipedia like he did, thereby eliminating any chance of remembering something incorrectly.
Noooo....as stated above I was the one that stated that what happened was assault and battery. However I did confuse the duties from negligence with intentional tort. I broke out the big ass book today to review it. Sooo yea, I was wrong from the duty owed, duty breached, etc, aspect.
Though my opinion of you hasn't changed. From all the crap I found on you, it seems most people agree with that opinion.
Yes you were wrong. You can read your "big ass book" all day long but that doesn't equate to a law degree with a bar card.
You found crap on me? You may have found posts about my screen name but they weren't about me. You are confusing the internet with reality.
I didn't "pick" the fight. I simply stated an opinion early on and he decided to chime in, I responded. Rinse and repeat several times and here we are.
You just inaccurately stated the applicable law and then refused to be confused with the facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vankuen
Either way I'm done. I guess next time I'll just use wikipedia like he did, thereby eliminating any chance of remembering something incorrectly.
Wikipedia? Give me a break. Find the page I copied and pasted from and show everyone. You wont be able to do that because those are my words. Again my law degree and bar cards trump your "big ass book."
You're funny. For being so highly educated, you sure are easy to manipulate with internet banter, but you probably already knew that. However, I did find a picture of you on the internet--this one is definitely you.
I win... Har Har Har
Linear Mode
