Where are the parents? Ha, ha, ha!

Post Reply
 
ColdHouse
Member
Posts: 2299
Joined: Thu. Nov. 08, 2012 12:06 pm
Location: Bristol, CT

Post by ColdHouse » Fri. Jan. 20, 2023 6:27 am

This country doesn't stand a chance.


 
User avatar
davidmcbeth3
Member
Posts: 8505
Joined: Sun. Jun. 14, 2009 2:31 pm
Coal Size/Type: nut/pea/anthra

Post by davidmcbeth3 » Fri. Jan. 20, 2023 7:30 am

ColdHouse wrote:
Fri. Jan. 20, 2023 6:27 am
This country doesn't stand a chance.
She should have placed them under arrest and used reasonable force to affect the arrest.

3min into vid part

 
ColdHouse
Member
Posts: 2299
Joined: Thu. Nov. 08, 2012 12:06 pm
Location: Bristol, CT

Post by ColdHouse » Fri. Jan. 20, 2023 9:39 am

davidmcbeth3 wrote:
Fri. Jan. 20, 2023 7:30 am
She should have placed them under arrest and used reasonable force to affect the arrest.

3min into vid part
If she shot them she would have a legal battle.

 
User avatar
tsb
Member
Posts: 2616
Joined: Wed. Jul. 30, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Douglassville, Pa
Stoker Coal Boiler: Binford 2000
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: LL Pioneer top vent
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Saey Hanover II
Baseburners & Antiques: Grander Golden Oak , Glenwood # 6
Coal Size/Type: All of them

Post by tsb » Fri. Jan. 20, 2023 9:51 am

In other news. Live from the WEF.

 
User avatar
davidmcbeth3
Member
Posts: 8505
Joined: Sun. Jun. 14, 2009 2:31 pm
Coal Size/Type: nut/pea/anthra

Post by davidmcbeth3 » Fri. Jan. 20, 2023 10:18 am

ColdHouse wrote:
Fri. Jan. 20, 2023 9:39 am
If she shot them she would have a legal battle.
Part of such an issue is that she brandished the gun before they broke any law. Anyone can come up to your door, the path to your door is a "welcome mat" basically. Meeting them at your door might be seen as an indication of intent.

Even in CT, you may carry a long gun without a permit, it appears. See DESPP training memo 2013-01.
https://docdro.id/ws34201
^ document here

In Connecticut, the law about use of force is shown in CGS Sec. 53a-22 .. for citizens its:

(f) A private person acting on his or her own account is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person whom he or she reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in fact has committed such offense; but he or she is not justified in using deadly physical force in such circumstances, except in defense of person as prescribed in section 53a-19.

You are free to go to google scholar and search "52a-22 citizen arrest" and go down the rabbit hole.

In CT if doing a citizen's arrest, I would recommend one does not use any physical force at all and make no attempt to limit the person's movements either verbally or physically in any way. The law is so that it would be an affirmative defense if arrested with a crime and the burden of proof will be on you.

 
User avatar
davidmcbeth3
Member
Posts: 8505
Joined: Sun. Jun. 14, 2009 2:31 pm
Coal Size/Type: nut/pea/anthra

Post by davidmcbeth3 » Fri. Jan. 20, 2023 10:52 am

tsb wrote:
Fri. Jan. 20, 2023 9:51 am
In other news. Live from the WEF.
Can anything top this ?

 
ColdHouse
Member
Posts: 2299
Joined: Thu. Nov. 08, 2012 12:06 pm
Location: Bristol, CT

Post by ColdHouse » Fri. Jan. 20, 2023 11:10 am

davidmcbeth3 wrote:
Fri. Jan. 20, 2023 10:18 am
Part of such an issue is that she brandished the gun before they broke any law. Anyone can come up to your door, the path to your door is a "welcome mat" basically. Meeting them at your door might be seen as an indication of intent.

Even in CT, you may carry a long gun without a permit, it appears. See DESPP training memo 2013-01.
https://docdro.id/ws34201
^ document here

In Connecticut, the law about use of force is shown in CGS Sec. 53a-22 .. for citizens its:

(f) A private person acting on his or her own account is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person whom he or she reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in fact has committed such offense; but he or she is not justified in using deadly physical force in such circumstances, except in defense of person as prescribed in section 53a-19.

You are free to go to google scholar and search "52a-22 citizen arrest" and go down the rabbit hole.

In CT if doing a citizen's arrest, I would recommend one does not use any physical force at all and make no attempt to limit the person's movements either verbally or physically in any way. The law is so that it would be an affirmative defense if arrested with a crime and the burden of proof will be on you.
And how would a person effectuate a "citizen's arrest" without the use of any physical force at all and make no attempt to limit the person's movements either verbally or physically in any way?
Are you a lawyer?


 
User avatar
davidmcbeth3
Member
Posts: 8505
Joined: Sun. Jun. 14, 2009 2:31 pm
Coal Size/Type: nut/pea/anthra

Post by davidmcbeth3 » Fri. Jan. 20, 2023 7:49 pm

ColdHouse wrote:
Fri. Jan. 20, 2023 11:10 am
And how would a person effectuate a "citizen's arrest" without the use of any physical force at all and make no attempt to limit the person's movements either verbally or physically in any way?
Are you a lawyer?
One announces that they are putting a person under citizens arrest, citing 53a-22 as authority, note the criminal law being broken (trespassing, etc). One can use physical force, the arrested person cannot sue you but the state can arrest you for kidnapping, etc. Then you would need to prove the guy did a criminal act and you placed under citizens arrest. You can ask the person to come down to police station. If you use force or threats then you might be arrested.

Its Connecticut. Don't think that they make laws that make sense.

 
ColdHouse
Member
Posts: 2299
Joined: Thu. Nov. 08, 2012 12:06 pm
Location: Bristol, CT

Post by ColdHouse » Sat. Jan. 21, 2023 4:32 am

davidmcbeth3 wrote:
Fri. Jan. 20, 2023 7:49 pm
One announces that they are putting a person under citizens arrest, citing 53a-22 as authority, note the criminal law being broken (trespassing, etc). One can use physical force, the arrested person cannot sue you but the state can arrest you for kidnapping, etc. Then you would need to prove the guy did a criminal act and you placed under citizens arrest. You can ask the person to come down to police station. If you use force or threats then you might be arrested.

Its Connecticut. Don't think that they make laws that make sense.
So basically the outcome of trying to effectuate a "citizens arrest" is the person you were trying to arrest goes free and you end up in jail and or long expensive court proceedings.

 
User avatar
freetown fred
Member
Posts: 30293
Joined: Thu. Dec. 31, 2009 12:33 pm
Location: Freetown,NY 13803
Hand Fed Coal Stove: HITZER 50-93
Coal Size/Type: BLASCHAK Nut

Post by freetown fred » Sat. Jan. 21, 2023 8:47 am

----------- :roll: -----------------

 
User avatar
davidmcbeth3
Member
Posts: 8505
Joined: Sun. Jun. 14, 2009 2:31 pm
Coal Size/Type: nut/pea/anthra

Post by davidmcbeth3 » Sat. Jan. 21, 2023 4:43 pm

ColdHouse wrote:
Sat. Jan. 21, 2023 4:32 am
So basically the outcome of trying to effectuate a "citizens arrest" is the person you were trying to arrest goes free and you end up in jail and or long expensive court proceedings.
Well, today, yes. Contact your state rep and seek to change the law to make it where only probable cause is the standard v. "committed the crime".

Of course in CT any right that existed before 1818 became incorporated into the constitution and are frozen to the law at the time 1818. Now there are many analysis of if citizens arrest was a broad or narrow authority for a person to arrest someone and questions as to who could arrest abound. Prior to police forces in the USA, regular citizens acted as police and states attorney. Have fun looking at that rabbit hole.

 
ColdHouse
Member
Posts: 2299
Joined: Thu. Nov. 08, 2012 12:06 pm
Location: Bristol, CT

Post by ColdHouse » Sat. Apr. 15, 2023 3:05 am

Washington State Passes Bill Allowing Government to Take Away Minor From Parents If They Refuse To Agree to Gender Transition Surgery

 
waytomany?s
Member
Posts: 3757
Joined: Fri. Aug. 16, 2019 3:02 pm
Location: Oneida, N.Y.
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harmon Mark II
Hand Fed Coal Furnace: Looking
Baseburners & Antiques: Looking
Coal Size/Type: Nut
Other Heating: newmac wood/coal combo furnace

Post by waytomany?s » Sat. Apr. 15, 2023 8:24 am

ColdHouse wrote:
Sat. Apr. 15, 2023 3:05 am
Washington State Passes Bill Allowing Government to Take Away Minor From Parents If They Refuse To Agree to Gender Transition Surgery
That's wrong. What is wrong with that state? Where did you read it? Have a link?

 
nut
Member
Posts: 1397
Joined: Wed. Aug. 28, 2019 1:54 pm
Location: NEPA
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Glacier Bay
Coal Size/Type: nut
Other Heating: electric

Post by nut » Sat. Apr. 15, 2023 9:08 am


 
User avatar
davidmcbeth3
Member
Posts: 8505
Joined: Sun. Jun. 14, 2009 2:31 pm
Coal Size/Type: nut/pea/anthra

Post by davidmcbeth3 » Sat. Apr. 15, 2023 12:52 pm

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gov-vetoe ... 1290&ei=16

Kansas gov decided that newborns can just die in the delivery room now. Pretty sad.


Post Reply

Return to “The Coffee House”