User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/2/2015 11:27:16 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Links to stories (from legitimate news sources) where they say this? I Googled "martese johnson beaten" and only got a handful of hits from liberal activist sources that used "beaten" or any derivative. Everyone else is using terms like "flung to the ground" or "excessive force" or "bloodied." And again, no, there isn't a difference - legally or physically. If I smash your head into a hard, immovable object, how is that "hugely different" from hitting you with my hands? It's probably worse, actually. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Has anybody seen video of the ABC agents beating this guy as claimed and repeated by several news media sources? Any links? I have seen some video but none show ABC hitting the guy. My opinion, looks like ABC face planted the guy into the brick looking sidewalk resulting in his forehead being split open. If so, very different then "bloody beating". I am not debating if justified or if ABC should even be, simply asking if this guy was really beaten as being reportedly claimed by media. "Hitting" somebody (i.e., with your hands directly) versus planting his face into the pavement strikes me as a purely semantic distinction. They used force and it resulted in injury. "Semantics" matter. There is a huge difference between cops beating the shit out of some one...as the news media is implying happened....and knocking/tackling/throwing somebody on the ground resulting in them hitting their head. Links to stories (from legitimate news sources) where they say this? I Googled "martese johnson beaten" and only got a handful of hits from liberal activist sources that used "beaten" or any derivative. Everyone else is using terms like "flung to the ground" or "excessive force" or "bloodied." And again, no, there isn't a difference - legally or physically. If I smash your head into a hard, immovable object, how is that "hugely different" from hitting you with my hands? It's probably worse, actually. Not sure if I can find the links but it was Jim Vance of NBC4 made statements with the term "beating". Saw it on another news channel as well. There is a huge difference both legally and physically. Agents of the state..police or ABC...beating somebody senseless and while they are not resisting is illegal. Somebody accidentally hitting head on the ground when reasonable force is being used is not illegal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2015 12:42:31 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure if I can find the links but it was Jim Vance of NBC4 made statements with the term "beating". Saw it on another news channel as well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure if I can find the links but it was Jim Vance of NBC4 made statements with the term "beating". Saw it on another news channel as well. You said it was claimed and repeated by several news outlets. Surely you can find at least one link. There is a huge difference both legally and physically. Agents of the state..police or ABC...beating somebody senseless and while they are not resisting is illegal. Somebody accidentally hitting head on the ground when reasonable force is being used is not illegal. Taking somebody down into the pavement is also illegal if a) the force was unreasonable (even if the arrest/detention was lawful) OR b) the entire arrest or seizure was illegal to begin with. I'm leaning toward "b" right now. If I intentionally apply force that can be reasonably expected to cause you physical injury, the precise mechanism is indeed mere semantics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2015 11:15:19 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You said it was claimed and repeated by several news outlets. Surely you can find at least one link. Taking somebody down into the pavement is also illegal if a) the force was unreasonable (even if the arrest/detention was lawful) OR b) the entire arrest or seizure was illegal to begin with. I'm leaning toward "b" right now. If I intentionally apply force that can be reasonably expected to cause you physical injury, the precise mechanism is indeed mere semantics. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not sure if I can find the links but it was Jim Vance of NBC4 made statements with the term "beating". Saw it on another news channel as well. You said it was claimed and repeated by several news outlets. Surely you can find at least one link. There is a huge difference both legally and physically. Agents of the state..police or ABC...beating somebody senseless and while they are not resisting is illegal. Somebody accidentally hitting head on the ground when reasonable force is being used is not illegal. Taking somebody down into the pavement is also illegal if a) the force was unreasonable (even if the arrest/detention was lawful) OR b) the entire arrest or seizure was illegal to begin with. I'm leaning toward "b" right now. If I intentionally apply force that can be reasonably expected to cause you physical injury, the precise mechanism is indeed mere semantics. I was unable to find the news cast with Mr. Vance of NBC4 on their webpage so I went to Google. Could not find it there either but did find some others. Here is just three. Two I have heard of...one I am not sure what kind of media it is. Here is one from ABC news--see title above the video. http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/uva-student-beaten-arrested-alcoholic-beverage-control-agents-29740600 Another media report - http://bluenationreview.com/unarmed-black-uva-student-beaten-arrested-police/ And another - http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/19/us-usa-virginia-police-idUSKBN0MF2P720150319 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2015 11:17:28 PM EDT
[#4]
And to be clear. I am not defending ABC's actions. I just want to know if there is actual video showing any kind of beating or punches being thrown.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2015 11:27:33 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You said it was claimed and repeated by several news outlets. Surely you can find at least one link. Taking somebody down into the pavement is also illegal if a) the force was unreasonable (even if the arrest/detention was lawful) OR b) the entire arrest or seizure was illegal to begin with. I'm leaning toward "b" right now. If I intentionally apply force that can be reasonably expected to cause you physical injury, the precise mechanism is indeed mere semantics. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Not sure if I can find the links but it was Jim Vance of NBC4 made statements with the term "beating". Saw it on another news channel as well. You said it was claimed and repeated by several news outlets. Surely you can find at least one link. There is a huge difference both legally and physically. Agents of the state..police or ABC...beating somebody senseless and while they are not resisting is illegal. Somebody accidentally hitting head on the ground when reasonable force is being used is not illegal. Taking somebody down into the pavement is also illegal if a) the force was unreasonable (even if the arrest/detention was lawful) OR b) the entire arrest or seizure was illegal to begin with. I'm leaning toward "b" right now. If I intentionally apply force that can be reasonably expected to cause you physical injury, the precise mechanism is indeed mere semantics. What if c) He was being arrested for drunk in public when he tried to get away, fell and hit his head during this attempt. That's what I'm leaning towards. There are plenty of cases to make a big deal about, but once again, this isn't the one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2015 4:59:38 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What if c) He was being arrested for drunk in public when he tried to get away, fell and hit his head during this attempt. That's what I'm leaning towards. There are plenty of cases to make a big deal about, but once again, this isn't the one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not sure if I can find the links but it was Jim Vance of NBC4 made statements with the term "beating". Saw it on another news channel as well. You said it was claimed and repeated by several news outlets. Surely you can find at least one link. There is a huge difference both legally and physically. Agents of the state..police or ABC...beating somebody senseless and while they are not resisting is illegal. Somebody accidentally hitting head on the ground when reasonable force is being used is not illegal. Taking somebody down into the pavement is also illegal if a) the force was unreasonable (even if the arrest/detention was lawful) OR b) the entire arrest or seizure was illegal to begin with. I'm leaning toward "b" right now. If I intentionally apply force that can be reasonably expected to cause you physical injury, the precise mechanism is indeed mere semantics. What if c) He was being arrested for drunk in public when he tried to get away, fell and hit his head during this attempt. That's what I'm leaning towards. There are plenty of cases to make a big deal about, but once again, this isn't the one. I might lean that way as well, if ABC didn't have a history of JBT behavior. But they do,so withholding final judgement until the VASP is done investigating isn't a bad idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2015 10:40:09 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I might lean that way as well, if ABC didn't have a history of JBT behavior. But they do,so withholding final judgement until the VASP is done investigating isn't a bad idea. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What if c) He was being arrested for drunk in public when he tried to get away, fell and hit his head during this attempt. That's what I'm leaning towards. There are plenty of cases to make a big deal about, but once again, this isn't the one. I might lean that way as well, if ABC didn't have a history of JBT behavior. But they do,so withholding final judgement until the VASP is done investigating isn't a bad idea. There's also been no objective information released yet to indicate that he was actually intoxicated. He's denied it and the owner of the bar where he was refused entry has publicly corroborated his denial. The only official statement I've seen on why he was approached in the first place is that the ABC agents saw that he got denied entry at the bar - nothing about appearing to be intoxicated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2015 3:09:59 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There's also been no objective information released yet to indicate that he was actually intoxicated. He's denied it and the owner of the bar where he was refused entry has publicly corroborated his denial. The only official statement I've seen on why he was approached in the first place is that the ABC agents saw that he got denied entry at the bar - nothing about appearing to be intoxicated. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: What if c) He was being arrested for drunk in public when he tried to get away, fell and hit his head during this attempt. That's what I'm leaning towards. There are plenty of cases to make a big deal about, but once again, this isn't the one. I might lean that way as well, if ABC didn't have a history of JBT behavior. But they do,so withholding final judgement until the VASP is done investigating isn't a bad idea. There's also been no objective information released yet to indicate that he was actually intoxicated. He's denied it and the owner of the bar where he was refused entry has publicly corroborated his denial. The only official statement I've seen on why he was approached in the first place is that the ABC agents saw that he got denied entry at the bar - nothing about appearing to be intoxicated. There's been no objective information to indicate that he wasn't intoxicated either, other than his own word and the bar owner, who was probably nowhere near him. I'd like to know a little more information on the bar owner, I suspect he has some sort of motive for being "involved". The video I saw showed what appeared to be an intoxicated young man yelling, cussing, and claiming to be a victim of racism... along with relatively calm ABC agents. I'm not taking up for the ABC, just telling it like I see it. I wonder why he was denied entry into the bar, and why he was trying to get into the bar? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2015 4:15:41 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's been no objective information to indicate that he wasn't intoxicated either, other than his own word and the bar owner, who was probably nowhere near him. I'd like to know a little more information on the bar owner, I suspect he has some sort of motive for being "involved". The video I saw showed what appeared to be an intoxicated young man yelling, cussing, and claiming to be a victim of racism... along with relatively calm ABC agents. I'm not taking up for the ABC, just telling it like I see it. I wonder why he was denied entry into the bar, and why he was trying to get into the bar? He was denied entry because he presented a (legitimate) ID that said he was 20, and he recited the wrong zip code. The video I saw showed a guy with a bloody forehead who was understandably not happy about it. What observations in the video lead you to conclude that he was intoxicated? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2015 5:28:24 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He was denied entry because he presented a (legitimate) ID that said he was 20, and he recited the wrong zip code. The video I saw showed a guy with a bloody forehead who was understandably not happy about it. What observations in the video lead you to conclude that he was intoxicated? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: There's been no objective information to indicate that he wasn't intoxicated either, other than his own word and the bar owner, who was probably nowhere near him. I'd like to know a little more information on the bar owner, I suspect he has some sort of motive for being "involved". The video I saw showed what appeared to be an intoxicated young man yelling, cussing, and claiming to be a victim of racism... along with relatively calm ABC agents. I'm not taking up for the ABC, just telling it like I see it. I wonder why he was denied entry into the bar, and why he was trying to get into the bar? He was denied entry because he presented a (legitimate) ID that said he was 20, and he recited the wrong zip code. The video I saw showed a guy with a bloody forehead who was understandably not happy about it. What observations in the video lead you to conclude that he was intoxicated? Probably the yelling, cussing, claims of racism, slurred speech, etc. made him appear to be intoxicated to me. I wasn't there, though, so I'm merely speculating, but I would guess he was intoxicated to some degree since he was charged with public intoxication. Just seems like another case of somebody being arrested, and they cry about it because they don't think the rules apply to them for whatever reason. None of us know all of the facts, including you, I am just stating my opinion as you are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2015 9:26:57 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably the yelling, cussing, claims of racism, slurred speech, etc. made him appear to be intoxicated to me. I wasn't there, though, so I'm merely speculating, but I would guess he was intoxicated to some degree since he was charged with public intoxication. Just seems like another case of somebody being arrested, and they cry about it because they don't think the rules apply to them for whatever reason. None of us know all of the facts, including you, I am just stating my opinion as you are. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's been no objective information to indicate that he wasn't intoxicated either, other than his own word and the bar owner, who was probably nowhere near him. I'd like to know a little more information on the bar owner, I suspect he has some sort of motive for being "involved". The video I saw showed what appeared to be an intoxicated young man yelling, cussing, and claiming to be a victim of racism... along with relatively calm ABC agents. I'm not taking up for the ABC, just telling it like I see it. I wonder why he was denied entry into the bar, and why he was trying to get into the bar? He was denied entry because he presented a (legitimate) ID that said he was 20, and he recited the wrong zip code. The video I saw showed a guy with a bloody forehead who was understandably not happy about it. What observations in the video lead you to conclude that he was intoxicated? Probably the yelling, cussing, claims of racism, slurred speech, etc. made him appear to be intoxicated to me. I wasn't there, though, so I'm merely speculating, but I would guess he was intoxicated to some degree since he was charged with public intoxication. Just seems like another case of somebody being arrested, and they cry about it because they don't think the rules apply to them for whatever reason. None of us know all of the facts, including you, I am just stating my opinion as you are. He was charged with the below, which is not necessarily the same thing. Considering he's on video shouting "fucking racist", I see no reason to assume he was intoxicated based on the information I've seen. § 18.2-388. Profane swearing and intoxication in public.
If any person profanely curses or swears or is intoxicated in public, whether such intoxication results from alcohol, narcotic drug or other intoxicant or drug of whatever nature, he shall be deemed guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. In any area in which there is located a court-approved detoxification center a law-enforcement officer may authorize the transportation, by police or otherwise, of public inebriates to such detoxification center in lieu of arrest; however, no person shall be involuntarily detained in such center. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2015 9:38:36 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He was denied entry because he presented a (legitimate) ID that said he was 20, and he recited the wrong zip code. The video I saw showed a guy with a bloody forehead who was understandably not happy about it. What observations in the video lead you to conclude that he was intoxicated? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There's been no objective information to indicate that he wasn't intoxicated either, other than his own word and the bar owner, who was probably nowhere near him. I'd like to know a little more information on the bar owner, I suspect he has some sort of motive for being "involved". The video I saw showed what appeared to be an intoxicated young man yelling, cussing, and claiming to be a victim of racism... along with relatively calm ABC agents. I'm not taking up for the ABC, just telling it like I see it. I wonder why he was denied entry into the bar, and why he was trying to get into the bar? He was denied entry because he presented a (legitimate) ID that said he was 20, and he recited the wrong zip code. The video I saw showed a guy with a bloody forehead who was understandably not happy about it. What observations in the video lead you to conclude that he was intoxicated? I don't get it. Why would you stand in line to get into a bar if it's 21 and up with an ID that says you're 20? If the bouncer checked the zip code why wouldn't be have checked the DOB? And if they were letting 18+ in why was he denied entry? Did the bouncer think he was 17 with a fake ID that said he was 20? That seems unlikely. Story doesn't make any sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2015 10:07:27 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't get it. Why would you stand in line to get into a bar if it's 21 and up with an ID that says you're 20? If the bouncer checked the zip code why wouldn't be have checked the DOB? And if they were letting 18+ in why was he denied entry? Did the bouncer think he was 17 with a fake ID that said he was 20? That seems unlikely. Story doesn't make any sense. Only explanation I can think of - or the bouncer was just bad at math and didn't realize he was only 20, but denied him because he flubbed the zip code. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2015 10:09:23 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He was charged with the below, which is not necessarily the same thing. Considering he's on video shouting "fucking racist", I see no reason to assume he was intoxicated based on the information I've seen. Quote HistoryQuoted:
He was charged with the below, which is not necessarily the same thing. Considering he's on video shouting "fucking racist", I see no reason to assume he was intoxicated based on the information I've seen. § 18.2-388. Profane swearing and intoxication in public.
If any person profanely curses or swears or is intoxicated in public, whether such intoxication results from alcohol, narcotic drug or other intoxicant or drug of whatever nature, he shall be deemed guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. In any area in which there is located a court-approved detoxification center a law-enforcement officer may authorize the transportation, by police or otherwise, of public inebriates to such detoxification center in lieu of arrest; however, no person shall be involuntarily detained in such center. 1. He was already being arrested when he swore. 2. The "profanely cursing or swearing" part of that statute is not enforceable (First Amendment) anyway. Hasn't been for decades. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2015 10:11:08 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably the yelling, cussing, claims of racism, slurred speech, etc. made him appear to be intoxicated to me. I wasn't there, though, so I'm merely speculating, but I would guess he was intoxicated to some degree since he was charged with public intoxication. Just seems like another case of somebody being arrested, and they cry about it because they don't think the rules apply to them for whatever reason. None of us know all of the facts, including you, I am just stating my opinion as you are. That seems a bit presumptuous. He must have been drunk because the ABC clowns charged him with that? These are the same idiots who went hut-hut at gunpoint with the girl carrying a case of bottle water. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2015 10:40:21 AM EDT
[#16]
In this interview the bar owner indicates that he is the one that denied entry- Owner said student was cordial
I'm starting to feel like this won't go well for the ABC, we'll see. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2015 11:09:37 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That seems a bit presumptuous. He must have been drunk because the ABC clowns charged him with that? These are the same idiots who went hut-hut at gunpoint with the girl carrying a case of bottle water. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Probably the yelling, cussing, claims of racism, slurred speech, etc. made him appear to be intoxicated to me. I wasn't there, though, so I'm merely speculating, but I would guess he was intoxicated to some degree since he was charged with public intoxication. Just seems like another case of somebody being arrested, and they cry about it because they don't think the rules apply to them for whatever reason. None of us know all of the facts, including you, I am just stating my opinion as you are. That seems a bit presumptuous. He must have been drunk because the ABC clowns charged him with that? These are the same idiots who went hut-hut at gunpoint with the girl carrying a case of bottle water. My statement is presumptuous, but yours isn't? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2015 11:34:53 AM EDT
[#18]
"He was charged with obstruction of justice without force and public swearing or intoxication" - ABC 8 New 23 Mar 2015. Regardless of circumstance, are under aged drinkers attacked like this at other colleges? I'm not impressed with the student, but this whole situation was ripe for UVA. The ABC are over reactive idiots summoned to the UVA community by the idiot running UVA. then idiot student gets a free pass to further incite other idiots with charges of racism. Just look at the past year or two of news in Cville...banning Lee-Jackson Day, Governor intervening in Board drama, high profile rapes and murders, Littllepaige - London - unhappy sports fans, Rollingstone, the bottled water fiasco, the bypass war, and someone out protesting some matter every time I roll through. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2015 3:21:31 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My statement is presumptuous, but yours isn't? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Probably the yelling, cussing, claims of racism, slurred speech, etc. made him appear to be intoxicated to me. I wasn't there, though, so I'm merely speculating, but I would guess he was intoxicated to some degree since he was charged with public intoxication. Just seems like another case of somebody being arrested, and they cry about it because they don't think the rules apply to them for whatever reason. None of us know all of the facts, including you, I am just stating my opinion as you are. That seems a bit presumptuous. He must have been drunk because the ABC clowns charged him with that? These are the same idiots who went hut-hut at gunpoint with the girl carrying a case of bottle water. My statement is presumptuous, but yours isn't? Yes. You're assuming he was intoxicated because he was charged. That's the epitome of putting the cart before the horse. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat ... and all that. ETA: I have made an honest effort to try to find evidence that he was intoxicated, and I can't. The university says he wasn't, the bar owner says he wasn't, and at least one national news source I found says a breathalyzer confirmed it. I've found nothing to suggest otherwise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2015 3:28:58 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"He was charged with obstruction of justice without force and public swearing or intoxication" - ABC 8 New 23 Mar 2015. Regardless of circumstance, are under aged drinkers attacked like this at other colleges? I've seen 60-year-old men arrested for DIP while standing on the sidewalk waiting for a cab. I know more than one person who has caught a DIP charge because he made the right decision to not drive drunk, and got popped walking home. Think about the public policy implications of that for a moment. Regardless of whether this particular guy was drunk, it's a stupid law. If you're drunk and disorderly that's one thing, but merely drunk in public? What is this, North Korea? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2015 3:43:25 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've seen 60-year-old men arrested for DIP while standing on the sidewalk waiting for a cab. I know more than one person who has caught a DIP charge because he made the right decision to not drive drunk, and got popped walking home. Think about the public policy implications of that for a moment. Regardless of whether this particular guy was drunk, it's a stupid law. If you're drunk and disorderly that's one thing, but merely drunk in public? What is this, North Korea? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
"He was charged with obstruction of justice without force and public swearing or intoxication" - ABC 8 New 23 Mar 2015. Regardless of circumstance, are under aged drinkers attacked like this at other colleges? I've seen 60-year-old men arrested for DIP while standing on the sidewalk waiting for a cab. I know more than one person who has caught a DIP charge because he made the right decision to not drive drunk, and got popped walking home. Think about the public policy implications of that for a moment. Regardless of whether this particular guy was drunk, it's a stupid law. If you're drunk and disorderly that's one thing, but merely drunk in public? What is this, North Korea? Shoot, if you are in the wrong county, you can get arrested as a passenger in a vehicle if you are drunk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2015 4:56:31 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Shoot, if you are in the wrong county, you can get arrested as a passenger in a vehicle if you are drunk. You can be convicted for being drunk on your own front porch, if you're within ear/eyeshot of "the public." There's a COA case on that. I've had to post that link in GD many times, nobody believes me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2015 8:47:14 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1. He was already being arrested when he swore. 2. The "profanely cursing or swearing" part of that statute is not enforceable (First Amendment) anyway. Hasn't been for decades. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He was charged with the below, which is not necessarily the same thing. Considering he's on video shouting "fucking racist", I see no reason to assume he was intoxicated based on the information I've seen. § 18.2-388. Profane swearing and intoxication in public.
If any person profanely curses or swears or is intoxicated in public, whether such intoxication results from alcohol, narcotic drug or other intoxicant or drug of whatever nature, he shall be deemed guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. In any area in which there is located a court-approved detoxification center a law-enforcement officer may authorize the transportation, by police or otherwise, of public inebriates to such detoxification center in lieu of arrest; however, no person shall be involuntarily detained in such center. 1. He was already being arrested when he swore. 2. The "profanely cursing or swearing" part of that statute is not enforceable (First Amendment) anyway. Hasn't been for decades. What's your point? Surely you aren't under the impression that you can only be charged with things you do before being detained... Again, what's your point? Lots of gun laws are unenforceable due to the Second Amendment, but people damned sure get arrested and charged with violating them. There is almost no information about this case, even with the video. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2015 8:33:35 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's your point? Surely you aren't under the impression that you can only be charged with things you do before being detained... Again, what's your point? Lots of gun laws are unenforceable due to the Second Amendment, but people damned sure get arrested and charged with violating them. There is almost no information about this case, even with the video. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
1. He was already being arrested when he swore. 2. The "profanely cursing or swearing" part of that statute is not enforceable (First Amendment) anyway. Hasn't been for decades. What's your point? Surely you aren't under the impression that you can only be charged with things you do before being detained... Again, what's your point? Lots of gun laws are unenforceable due to the Second Amendment, but people damned sure get arrested and charged with violating them. There is almost no information about this case, even with the video. 1. So why was he detained in the first place? That's the point. 2. This isn't one of those "gee, it really should be found to unconstitutional because it seems that way to me" arguments. IT'S ALREADY HAPPENED So, even if his initial detention was permissible, that charge is dogshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2015 11:51:29 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure if I can find the links but it was Jim Vance of NBC4 made statements with the term "beating". Saw it on another news channel as well. There is a huge difference both legally and physically. Agents of the state..police or ABC...beating somebody senseless and while they are not resisting is illegal. Somebody accidentally hitting head on the ground when reasonable force is being used is not illegal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Has anybody seen video of the ABC agents beating this guy as claimed and repeated by several news media sources? Any links? I have seen some video but none show ABC hitting the guy. My opinion, looks like ABC face planted the guy into the brick looking sidewalk resulting in his forehead being split open. If so, very different then "bloody beating". I am not debating if justified or if ABC should even be, simply asking if this guy was really beaten as being reportedly claimed by media. "Hitting" somebody (i.e., with your hands directly) versus planting his face into the pavement strikes me as a purely semantic distinction. They used force and it resulted in injury. "Semantics" matter. There is a huge difference between cops beating the shit out of some one...as the news media is implying happened....and knocking/tackling/throwing somebody on the ground resulting in them hitting their head. Links to stories (from legitimate news sources) where they say this? I Googled "martese johnson beaten" and only got a handful of hits from liberal activist sources that used "beaten" or any derivative. Everyone else is using terms like "flung to the ground" or "excessive force" or "bloodied." And again, no, there isn't a difference - legally or physically. If I smash your head into a hard, immovable object, how is that "hugely different" from hitting you with my hands? It's probably worse, actually. Not sure if I can find the links but it was Jim Vance of NBC4 made statements with the term "beating". Saw it on another news channel as well. There is a huge difference both legally and physically. Agents of the state..police or ABC...beating somebody senseless and while they are not resisting is illegal. Somebody accidentally hitting head on the ground when reasonable force is being used is not illegal. What planet do you live on where "accidentally" throwing someones head into a sidewalk is reasonable? Unless the guy was being combative, fighting, there is no need to take anyone to the ground. Lord, you think they were arresting a career vicious criminal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2015 4:01:02 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only explanation I can think of - or the bouncer was just bad at math and didn't realize he was only 20, but denied him because he flubbed the zip code. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't get it. Why would you stand in line to get into a bar if it's 21 and up with an ID that says you're 20? If the bouncer checked the zip code why wouldn't be have checked the DOB? And if they were letting 18+ in why was he denied entry? Did the bouncer think he was 17 with a fake ID that said he was 20? That seems unlikely. Story doesn't make any sense. Only explanation I can think of - or the bouncer was just bad at math and didn't realize he was only 20, but denied him because he flubbed the zip code. Possible but improbable. If you're going to buy or borrow a fake it'll show you as 21. Bouncer only has to remember one date and determine if the DOB is before or after it. Simpler explanation is that Martese dindu nuffin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2015 10:46:00 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Possible but improbable. If you're going to buy or borrow a fake it'll show you as 21. Bouncer only has to remember one date and determine if the DOB is before or after it. Simpler explanation is that Martese dindu nuffin. He didn't borrow a fake ID, it was his real ID. Supposedly he flubbed the zip code because his family had moved and he hadn't renewed the license since that time. I'm still trying to figure out what it is that he "dindu" in this case, that got him popped in the first place. No fake ID. Intoxilyzer at the station says wasn't intoxicated (according to various media reports and the university spokesman). Why did they bother him in the first place? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2015 12:25:07 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He didn't borrow a fake ID, it was his real ID. Supposedly he flubbed the zip code because his family had moved and he hadn't renewed the license since that time. I'm still trying to figure out what it is that he "dindu" in this case, that got him popped in the first place. No fake ID. Intoxilyzer at the station says wasn't intoxicated (according to various media reports and the university spokesman). Why did they bother him in the first place? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Possible but improbable. If you're going to buy or borrow a fake it'll show you as 21. Bouncer only has to remember one date and determine if the DOB is before or after it. Simpler explanation is that Martese dindu nuffin. He didn't borrow a fake ID, it was his real ID. Supposedly he flubbed the zip code because his family had moved and he hadn't renewed the license since that time. I'm still trying to figure out what it is that he "dindu" in this case, that got him popped in the first place. No fake ID. Intoxilyzer at the station says wasn't intoxicated (according to various media reports and the university spokesman). Why did they bother him in the first place? All the media reports I've seen are based on that single statement from an administrator. His story and his lawyer's story is that he presented a true ID and flubbed his zip. My comment about a fake or borrowed ID was from the bouncer's POV. Is he really going to ask a verifying question on an ID saying someone is 20? Has anyone ever seen that happen? Maybe ABC did brace this guy for no reason, see what the investigation says. But his story sounds weird to me, and in my experience weird stories are usually BS. Here's a non-incident-related story where Martese talks about his feels. I dislike this kid regardless. http://www.cavalierdaily.com/m/article/2015/04/honor-committee-approves-bylaw-changes |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2015 1:55:57 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All the media reports I've seen are based on that single statement from an administrator. His story and his lawyer's story is that he presented a true ID and flubbed his zip. My comment about a fake or borrowed ID was from the bouncer's POV. Is he really going to ask a verifying question on an ID saying someone is 20? Has anyone ever seen that happen? Maybe ABC did brace this guy for no reason, see what the investigation says. But his story sounds weird to me, and in my experience weird stories are usually BS. Here's a non-incident-related story where Martese talks about his feels. I dislike this kid regardless. http://www.cavalierdaily.com/m/article/2015/04/honor-committee-approves-bylaw-changes We may never see the VSP investigation. The one involving the bottled water girl got pigeon-holed into some FOIA exemption because it contained "personnel" information, and then the civil suit settled. I agree that his story is odd about the ID. The only thing I can think of is that the ABC guys saw him get turned away and just assumed, based on that alone, that this was because of some unlawful act (fake ID, too drunk, etc.). |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2015 2:14:12 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:But his story sounds weird to me, and in my experience weird stories are usually BS. VA ABC no longer has the benefit of the doubt for many of us. They lost that when they pulled their sidearms on a coed because she put a case of La Croix in her car and wouldn't roll down her window to talk to the men that were running at her and shouting. It didn't help when apparently, a single "rogue" ABC officer decided to single-handedly try to shut down the Lockn' music festival in Nelson County. So, yeah. I don't think Martese Johnson and I would be hanging out on the weekends, but pardon me if I don't discount his testimony when it is consistent with the documented past behavior of the agency in question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2015 3:10:23 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
VA ABC no longer has the benefit of the doubt for many of us. They lost that when they pulled their sidearms on a coed because she put a case of La Croix in her car and wouldn't roll down her window to talk to the men that were running at her and shouting. It didn't help when apparently, a single "rogue" ABC officer decided to single-handedly try to shut down the Lockn' music festival in Nelson County. So, yeah. I don't think Martese Johnson and I would be hanging out on the weekends, but pardon me if I don't discount his testimony when it is consistent with the documented past behavior of the agency in question. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:But his story sounds weird to me, and in my experience weird stories are usually BS. VA ABC no longer has the benefit of the doubt for many of us. They lost that when they pulled their sidearms on a coed because she put a case of La Croix in her car and wouldn't roll down her window to talk to the men that were running at her and shouting. It didn't help when apparently, a single "rogue" ABC officer decided to single-handedly try to shut down the Lockn' music festival in Nelson County. So, yeah. I don't think Martese Johnson and I would be hanging out on the weekends, but pardon me if I don't discount his testimony when it is consistent with the documented past behavior of the agency in question. Oh, don't get me wrong, ABC is chewed up. Part of that is their terrible mission, enforcing laws that are pretty much universally ignored and scorned. If ABC goes away entirely and the mission goes to the VSP it won't bother me a bit. But just because they've been wrong in the past doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2015 6:33:46 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh, don't get me wrong, ABC is chewed up. Part of that is their terrible mission, enforcing laws that are pretty much universally ignored and scorned. If ABC goes away entirely and the mission goes to the VSP it won't bother me a bit. But just because they've been wrong in the past doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong here. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:But his story sounds weird to me, and in my experience weird stories are usually BS. VA ABC no longer has the benefit of the doubt for many of us. They lost that when they pulled their sidearms on a coed because she put a case of La Croix in her car and wouldn't roll down her window to talk to the men that were running at her and shouting. It didn't help when apparently, a single "rogue" ABC officer decided to single-handedly try to shut down the Lockn' music festival in Nelson County. So, yeah. I don't think Martese Johnson and I would be hanging out on the weekends, but pardon me if I don't discount his testimony when it is consistent with the documented past behavior of the agency in question. Oh, don't get me wrong, ABC is chewed up. Part of that is their terrible mission, enforcing laws that are pretty much universally ignored and scorned. If ABC goes away entirely and the mission goes to the VSP it won't bother me a bit. But just because they've been wrong in the past doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong here. Very well said. The only side that we've heard from so far is that of the defendant. I'd like to hear what the arresting officers have to say. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2015 11:14:13 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What planet do you live on where "accidentally" throwing someones head into a sidewalk is reasonable? Unless the guy was being combative, fighting, there is no need to take anyone to the ground. Lord, you think they were arresting a career vicious criminal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not sure if I can find the links but it was Jim Vance of NBC4 made statements with the term "beating". Saw it on another news channel as well. There is a huge difference both legally and physically. Agents of the state..police or ABC...beating somebody senseless and while they are not resisting is illegal. Somebody accidentally hitting head on the ground when reasonable force is being used is not illegal. What planet do you live on where "accidentally" throwing someones head into a sidewalk is reasonable? Unless the guy was being combative, fighting, there is no need to take anyone to the ground. Lord, you think they were arresting a career vicious criminal. Where did I say they threw his head "accidentally" into the sidewalk? That is not what I said. It is perfectly legal to take somebody to the ground that is unlawfully resisting; trying to pull away from an officer while being handcuffed. And doing so is reasonable force in most cases. It is very probable his head hit the ground when ABC took him to the ground. I am willing to bet the guy hitting his head was an accident. And I would have to agree with you. There is no reason to take somebody to the ground unless being combative or resisting. If the upstanding student had simply turned around when told he was under arrest, then there would have been no need to take him to the ground. I would almost guarantee the student did not turn around and submit when told he was under arrest. Here is what is important-- Did ABC stop this student? and if so did they have reasonable suspicion to do so? Did ABC have probable cause to make an arrest? Was the force used to make arrest reasonable? Was the student trying to get away? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2015 11:40:41 AM EDT
[#34]
ABC saw the student get rejected from the bar. There maybe more to this but the information is not out there that I am aware of. ABC walked up to talk with the student. It may have been consensual at first or ABC may have had reasonable suspicion to detain the student. It could have started off consensually and then quickly turned into a detention. Again, I have not seen the information out there as to why ABC did what they did. At some point ABC decided they had probable cause to make an arrest and the student did not comply and decided he was not getting arrested. ABC used force to make the arrest when the student started to resist resulting with the student hitting his head accidently on the ground while being taken to the ground. This last part is what my belief is.
The student and his lawyer claim he was not drunk, have they claimed he had not been drinking? I am betting he had been drinking. Would be interesting if the hospital took blood when treating the student for the injury. Or the kid did nothing wrong and ABC just totally screwed up like they did with the girl last year. I would like to know, as the rest of you, what ABC did and why. Then we would have the information to debate if what they did was right or wrong. We are all just guessing or make stuff up based upon the news media or from our own beliefs without knowing all the information. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
