On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:04:15 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
 wrote:

>r_c_brown@hushmail.com wrote:
>> On Sep 23, 9:11 am, "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote:
>>> r_c_br...@hushmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sep 21, 5:25 pm, "Reality_Check©"  wrote:
>>>>> r_c_br...@hushmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Sep 21, 4:44 pm, "Reality_Check©"  wrote:
>>>>>>> r_c_br...@hushmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sep 21, 4:09 pm, "Reality_Check©"  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> r_c_br...@hushmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 21, 9:55 am, "_ Prof. Jonez _" 
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> r_c_br...@hushmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 20, 10:17 am, "_ Prof. Jonez _" 
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Reality_Check©"  wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Elias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Elias wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Elias wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _ Prof Poofter Jonez _ wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "There is no right to murder"
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody said there was, poofter.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's someone else's quote, numbnuts.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why do you keep quoting it?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's why they call it a "quote", numbnuts.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's still someone else's quote, numbnuts.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again, poofter, YOU are the one that keeps bringing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it up, and thinks that "right" exists.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English ain't your first language, is it moron?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So is there a "right" to homicide like the other poster
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Depends on the homicide. Some are justified.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So is there a "right" to homicide?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a right to self-defense.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Where, exactly, it that "right" ?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have a right to life, therefore you have a right to
>>>>>>>>>> self-defense.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even against the Police, eh?
>>>
>>>>>>>> If the police are in the wrong, as happens sometimes, and it is
>>>>>>>> shown to be so in a court of law, then yes.
>>>
>>>>>>> So this "right" has to be "shown in a court of law", eh?- Hide
>>>>>>> quoted text -
>>>
>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>>>> Anytime there is a homicide, a determination of weather or not it
>>>>>> was justified needs to be made.
>>>
>>>>> Doesn't sound like much of a "right" then, does it?
>>>
>>>> Exercise of the right to self-defense rarely involves homicide.
>>>
>>>> When a homicide does take place it makes sense to determine if it
>>>> was justifiable, or if it was murder or manslaughter.
>>>
>>>> You wouldn't want it any other way, would you?
>>>
>>> So it that how "rights" work? Gov't "determinations" as to whether
>>> they were applicable or not?
>>
>> No.  That is how disputes involving rights work.
>>
>> If one exercises their rights (you know, to life, liberty, and pursuit
>> of happiness) i
>
>LOL!
>
>And where are those "rights" codified in law?
>
>>n such a way that no one else's rights are violated,
>> there is no issue.  The courts get involved only when there is a real
>> or perceived violation of someone elses rights.
>>
>> You wouldn't want it any other way, would you?
>
>Use of force prohibited. A person may not use force to resist being
>placed under arrest or in protective custody by a police officer
>engaged in the performance of his duties, regardless of whether the
>police conduct is unlawful. People v. Hess, 687 P.2d 443 (Colo.
>1984). 
>

Not exactly, little lying momma's boy.

Our reasoning today parallels that used in cases finding that a
defendant can be charged with resisting arrest even if the arrest is
unlawful. See People v. Hess, 687 P.2d 443, 446 (Colo. 1984). In Hess,
we determined that under section 18-8-103 of the Criminal Code, a
citizen has no right to resist arrest as long as the officer is acting
under color of his authority and is not using excessive force. Id. An
officer acts "under color of his official authority" when, in the
regular course of assigned duties, he makes a judgment in good faith
based upon surrounding facts and circumstances. ? 18-8-103(2), 6
C.R.S. (2000).

Perhaps you should not the phrase "and is not using excessive force.'

br549@pobox.com wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:04:15 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
>  wrote:
>
>> r_c_brown@hushmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sep 23, 9:11 am, "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote:
>>>> r_c_br...@hushmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 21, 5:25 pm, "Reality_Check©"  wrote:
>>>>>> r_c_br...@hushmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sep 21, 4:44 pm, "Reality_Check©"  wrote:
>>>>>>>> r_c_br...@hushmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sep 21, 4:09 pm, "Reality_Check©"  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> r_c_br...@hushmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 21, 9:55 am, "_ Prof. Jonez _" 
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> r_c_br...@hushmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 20, 10:17 am, "_ Prof. Jonez _" 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Reality_Check©"  wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Elias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Elias wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Elias wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _ Prof Poofter Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "There is no right to murder"
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody said there was, poofter.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's someone else's quote, numbnuts.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why do you keep quoting it?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's why they call it a "quote", numbnuts.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's still someone else's quote, numbnuts.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again, poofter, YOU are the one that keeps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bringing it up, and thinks that "right" exists.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English ain't your first language, is it moron?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So is there a "right" to homicide like the other poster
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Depends on the homicide. Some are justified.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So is there a "right" to homicide?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a right to self-defense.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Where, exactly, it that "right" ?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You have a right to life, therefore you have a right to
>>>>>>>>>>> self-defense.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even against the Police, eh?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the police are in the wrong, as happens sometimes, and it
>>>>>>>>> is shown to be so in a court of law, then yes.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> So this "right" has to be "shown in a court of law", eh?- Hide
>>>>>>>> quoted text -
>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>
>>>>>>> Anytime there is a homicide, a determination of weather or not
>>>>>>> it was justified needs to be made.
>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't sound like much of a "right" then, does it?
>>>>
>>>>> Exercise of the right to self-defense rarely involves homicide.
>>>>
>>>>> When a homicide does take place it makes sense to determine if it
>>>>> was justifiable, or if it was murder or manslaughter.
>>>>
>>>>> You wouldn't want it any other way, would you?
>>>>
>>>> So it that how "rights" work? Gov't "determinations" as to whether
>>>> they were applicable or not?
>>>
>>> No.  That is how disputes involving rights work.
>>>
>>> If one exercises their rights (you know, to life, liberty, and
>>> pursuit of happiness) i
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> And where are those "rights" codified in law?
>>
>>> n such a way that no one else's rights are violated,
>>> there is no issue.  The courts get involved only when there is a
>>> real or perceived violation of someone elses rights.
>>>
>>> You wouldn't want it any other way, would you?
>>
>> Use of force prohibited. A person may not use force to resist being
>> placed under arrest or in protective custody by a police officer
>> engaged in the performance of his duties, regardless of whether the
>> police conduct is unlawful. People v. Hess, 687 P.2d 443 (Colo.
>> 1984).
>>
>
> Not exactly, little lying momma's boy.
>
> Our reasoning today parallels that used in cases finding that a
> defendant can be charged with resisting arrest even if the arrest is
> unlawful. See People v. Hess, 687 P.2d 443, 446 (Colo. 1984). In Hess,
> we determined that under section 18-8-103 of the Criminal Code, a
> citizen has no right to resist arrest as long as the officer is acting
> under color of his authority and is not using excessive force. Id. An
> officer acts "under color of his official authority" when, in the
> regular course of assigned duties, he makes a judgment in good faith
> based upon surrounding facts and circumstances. ? 18-8-103(2), 6
> C.R.S. (2000).
>
> Perhaps you should not the phrase "and is not using excessive force.'

So citizens can pop a cap in your slimy pig ass when you get
too froggy, eh scumbag?