TexasCHLforum.com

MaduroBU wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 6:50 pm

I would also add that having "consequences" of a legal nature for what you say is NOT free speech.

I strongly disagree; the goal of speech meriting protection by the law is to produce consequences. No law is needed to protect conversation about the color of the sky or what the weather looks like. Controversial speech does require such protections, but that takes the form of prohibiting prior restraint. The government cannot legally prevent you from saying or disseminating your thoughts. Private individuals are more than welcome to refuse to help you amplify your thoughts, a distinction which has new import now that public discourse is online (and thus, due to atrocious planning at all levels of government, private). None of that changes how consequences of speech, legal, illegal, desirable, undesirable, intended and unintended play out.

The standard for prosecution for holding or sharing thoughts, even thoughts which are intensely and widely unpopular, is EXTREMELY high. It's legal to be a racist, a nazi, a communist, or whatever so long as one does not actively incite people to illegal action. Other people may respond very negatively to your public beliefs, but the government cannot prevent you from sharing them or prosecute you for doing so. The fact that one holds such beliefs could legally be used in the investigation or prosecution of criminal activity. If a black family has a cross burned in their yard, locals who are known to publicly espouse racist views are going to merit increased suspicion and, if other evidence suggests involvement, inadvertently aid in their own prosecution. If three white guys run down a black guy and then kill him based upon essentially no evidence of wrongdoing, their prior admissions of gross racial bias are absolutely germane to the prosecution. That's not suppression of free speech.

Agreed! 100% with this.

[caveat]Dear Mr NSA, I am merely hypothesizing here, and nothing I say in this thread should be construed to mean that I would support such illegal activity.[/caveat]

MaduroBU wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 6:50 pm

I would also add that having "consequences" of a legal nature for what you say is NOT free speech.

I strongly disagree; the goal of speech meriting protection by the law is to produce consequences. No law is needed to protect conversation about the color of the sky or what the weather looks like. Controversial speech does require such protections, but that takes the form of prohibiting prior restraint. The government cannot legally prevent you from saying or disseminating your thoughts. Private individuals are more than welcome to refuse to help you amplify your thoughts, a distinction which has new import now that public discourse is online (and thus, due to atrocious planning at all levels of government, private). None of that changes how consequences of speech, legal, illegal, desirable, undesirable, intended and unintended play out.

The standard for prosecution for holding or sharing thoughts, even thoughts which are intensely and widely unpopular, is EXTREMELY high. It's legal to be a racist, a nazi, a communist, or whatever so long as one does not actively incite people to illegal action. Other people may respond very negatively to your public beliefs, but the government cannot prevent you from sharing them or prosecute you for doing so. The fact that one holds such beliefs could legally be used in the investigation or prosecution of criminal activity. If a black family has a cross burned in their yard, locals who are known to publicly espouse racist views are going to merit increased suspicion and, if other evidence suggests involvement, inadvertently aid in their own prosecution. If three white guys run down a black guy and then kill him based upon essentially no evidence of wrongdoing, their prior admissions of gross racial bias are absolutely germane to the prosecution. That's not suppression of free speech.

MaduroBU, it occurs to me that your standard here actually potentially threatens to crossover into unconstitutional suppression of free speech. Maybe not. Here is a speculative example of what I mean, and maybe you could address it to parse your previous statement......

On Twitter—a cesspool for which I confess an affinity—I have seen call after call by plainly crackpot individuals for Trump's removal from office BEFORE 01/20/2021, without any specifically stated limitation on means, for the "crime" of refusing to concede the election until all the cases of voting fraud currently under investigation have been investigated and adjudicated. Suppose, hypothetically, that an unsuccessful attempted assassination of Trump occurs between now and then, and the investigation into it reveals that, prior to the attempted assassination, some of the suspected conspirators had posted their belief on Twitter that Trump should be "removed from office" prior to the inauguration. Barring any other evidence, should those tweets be enough to deny them bail?

From a personal perspective, I have publicly stated that Biden will never be my president. He may become THE president, but everything that he stands for is so diametrically opposed to anything that I stand for, that on his very best day, he can never represent ANY of my interests, and will never defend them against those who would trample them. He is nothing more than a symbol of a dying republic. I have publicly stated that he deserves nothing less than the exact same levels of respect and cooperation that his supporters gave Trump for the past 4 years. I have publicly stated that I will resist him in every way that I can lawfully do so as an individual, and I have repeatedly (and deliberately ironically) used the #resist hashtag in online posts stating my opposition to a possible Biden administration. If, once he has been inaugurated, some feckless boneheads unknown to me attempt to kill him, do my words constitutionally justify rounding me up as well and denying me bail? What if it turns out that I “follow” one of them on Twitter? I don’t advocate for murder and would never be party to such a conspiracy, but the main reason I pray for Biden's good health is Kamala Harris.....who may in fact be a greater threat to Biden than anyone who voted Republican.....and I have stated those sentiments publicly.

Please tell me that I am hyperventilating here, and reading into your words something that you did not mean.

I haven’t been a member of the GOP since 2012, but I praise Jesus that Trump gave us three good SCOTUS justices, who will hopefully stand as a bulwark against a tyrannical presidency......from ANY party.

From a personal perspective, I have publicly stated that Biden will never be my president. He may become THE president, but everything that he stands for is so diametrically opposed to anything that I stand for, that on his very best day, he can never represent ANY of my interests, and will never defend them against those who would trample them. He is nothing more than a symbol of a dying republic. I have publicly stated that he deserves nothing less than the exact same levels of respect and cooperation that his supporters gave Trump for the past 4 years. I have publicly stated that I will resist him in every way that I can lawfully do so as an individual, and I have repeatedly (and deliberately ironically) used the #resist hashtag in online posts stating my opposition to a possible Biden administration. If, once he has been inaugurated, some feckless boneheads unknown to me attempt to kill him, do my words constitutionally justify rounding me up as well and denying me bail? What if it turns out that I “follow” one of them on Twitter? I don’t advocate for murder and would never be party to such a conspiracy, but the main reason I pray for Biden's good health is Kamala Harris.....who may in fact be a greater threat to Biden than anyone who voted Republican.....and I have stated those sentiments publicly.

IANAL, but my caveman understanding is that in both scenarios, posting that sort of general criticism of the president is laughably distant from evidence that someone has or might commit a crime. In every case, I am suggesting that publicly available speech might be used to reinforce other evidence, but I cannot envision a scenario in which such speech were used as evidence of a crime unless the problem had shifted from "suppression of speech" to "outright political oppression". I agree that broadening evidentiary standards to include any sort of criticism of the ruling party is deeply problematic, but I think that it fits into a different bucket (essentially a denial of due process rather than some form of prior restraint). There is is a large body of case law on the general topic of "chilling effect", but I think that is a due process problem creeping into the area of suppressing free speech. The suppression of relevant evidence in some cases doesn't directly address the issue of the same sort of wildly insufficient evidence being misused in other cases.

One other important thing to learn: Text messages are discoverable.

MaduroBU wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 9:58 am

From a personal perspective, I have publicly stated that Biden will never be my president. He may become THE president, but everything that he stands for is so diametrically opposed to anything that I stand for, that on his very best day, he can never represent ANY of my interests, and will never defend them against those who would trample them. He is nothing more than a symbol of a dying republic. I have publicly stated that he deserves nothing less than the exact same levels of respect and cooperation that his supporters gave Trump for the past 4 years. I have publicly stated that I will resist him in every way that I can lawfully do so as an individual, and I have repeatedly (and deliberately ironically) used the #resist hashtag in online posts stating my opposition to a possible Biden administration. If, once he has been inaugurated, some feckless boneheads unknown to me attempt to kill him, do my words constitutionally justify rounding me up as well and denying me bail? What if it turns out that I “follow” one of them on Twitter? I don’t advocate for murder and would never be party to such a conspiracy, but the main reason I pray for Biden's good health is Kamala Harris.....who may in fact be a greater threat to Biden than anyone who voted Republican.....and I have stated those sentiments publicly.

IANAL, but my caveman understanding is that in both scenarios, posting that sort of general criticism of the president is laughably distant from evidence that someone has or might commit a crime. In every case, I am suggesting that publicly available speech might be used to reinforce other evidence, but I cannot envision a scenario in which such speech were used as evidence of a crime unless the problem had shifted from "suppression of speech" to "outright political oppression". I agree that broadening evidentiary standards to include any sort of criticism of the ruling party is deeply problematic, but I think that it fits into a different bucket (essentially a denial of due process rather than some form of prior restraint). There is is a large body of case law on the general topic of "chilling effect", but I think that is a due process problem creeping into the area of suppressing free speech. The suppression of relevant evidence in some cases doesn't directly address the issue of the same sort of wildly insufficient evidence being misused in other cases.

One other important thing to learn: Text messages are discoverable.

All that is well and good for the trial...MAYBE. But what we are talking about here is two innocent until proven guilty men charged with a crime. Raising the bail or refusing to set a bail because they happened to say something deemed as racist is just pure baloney. Again!!! INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! Saying something deemed as racist does not indicate a flight risk or a risk of them committing another crime if out on bail.

MaduroBU wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 9:58 am

One other important thing to learn: Text messages are discoverable.

Let’s say in Minecraft - I have a friend. No texting, no emails, no social media, he likes face to face conversations even if it means taking an hour, where a five second text would work.

Let’s just say he is very careful.

I’m in the middle. I text. I email. I’m on social media, but I always assume it can be seen by the world and a screen name can be tracked down. So yeah, if this new socialist agenda takes off, it will be a re-education camp for me, in Minecraft.

https://news.yahoo.com/black-mans-death ... 26653.html

Georgia Senate votes to end citizen arrest law.

https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/n ... -activity/

Need to read this.

Our “jogger” apparently likes to tell police this when he is stopped by police after people have called about all sorts of minor crimes. He is also confrontational with police, and threatened violence on one officer.

Convenience store people called him the “ jogger “ as he would stretch and stuff outside the store and dash in and grab small items and dash out without paying.

Sounds like after his death, this area was safer from shoplifting, peeping toms etc.

https://abc7chicago.com/ahmaud-arbery-l ... /10557220/

Feds piling on with Federal charges.

https://news.yahoo.com/gov-kemp-set-rep ... 29969.html

Citizens arrest law repealed in Georgia.

A citizens arrest is probably a bad idea anyway.

Not something I would want to do.

philip964 wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 4:40 pm https://news.yahoo.com/gov-kemp-set-rep ... 29969.html

Citizens arrest law repealed in Georgia.

A citizens arrest is probably a bad idea anyway.

Not something I would want to do.

I agree that it is a bad idea for a casual observer to try to arrest someone they see committing a crime, where the observer is not a victim of the crime.

But I also think the devil is in the details here. The article says that businesses can still detain people, presumably with force, and that licensed security officers can also detain people.

To me, a key question would be whether a regular homeowner could detain an intruder until police arrive, including the use of force to do so. Or would this be unlawful under the revised law?

I do as well. If you think something is going down and it’s not on your property, call for the popo and keep an eye on things. Let the paid peace officers do their thing.

Jeff B.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 5:00 pm

philip964 wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 4:40 pm https://news.yahoo.com/gov-kemp-set-rep ... 29969.html

Citizens arrest law repealed in Georgia.

A citizens arrest is probably a bad idea anyway.

Not something I would want to do.

I agree that it is a bad idea for a casual observer to try to arrest someone they see committing a crime, where the observer is not a victim of the crime.

But I also think the devil is in the details here. The article says that businesses can still detain people, presumably with force, and that licensed security officers can also detain people.

To me, a key question would be whether a regular homeowner could detain an intruder until police arrive, including the use of force to do so. Or would this be unlawful under the revised law?

I don't see Citizens arrest action in the same category as self defense or a a castle doctrine action. In the first situation one is attempting to make an arrest after seeing a crime. In the second situation one is utilizing self defense when the crime is against them. Maybe I am wrong, I am not an attorney and did not sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.

03Lightningrocks wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:23 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 5:00 pm

philip964 wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 4:40 pm https://news.yahoo.com/gov-kemp-set-rep ... 29969.html

Citizens arrest law repealed in Georgia.

A citizens arrest is probably a bad idea anyway.

Not something I would want to do.

I agree that it is a bad idea for a casual observer to try to arrest someone they see committing a crime, where the observer is not a victim of the crime.

But I also think the devil is in the details here. The article says that businesses can still detain people, presumably with force, and that licensed security officers can also detain people.

To me, a key question would be whether a regular homeowner could detain an intruder until police arrive, including the use of force to do so. Or would this be unlawful under the revised law?

I don't see Citizens arrest action in the same category as self defense or a a castle doctrine action. In the first situation one is attempting to make an arrest after seeing a crime. In the second situation one is utilizing self defense when the crime is against them. Maybe I am wrong, I am not an attorney and did not sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.

First of all, I am not a lawyer. The great wisdom I'm about to dispense comes from a 3 day class I took a couple of years ago. So, here goes.

I believe the term "Citizen's Arrest" is a misnomer that could lead to some unfortunate decisions. From what I remember from my Level III security class is that citizens (and that's what commissioned Security Officers are) have no arrest powers. Any citizen may detain another citizen for sufficient reason. (I'm still pretty vague on what is a "sufficient" reason) I know that in my case I never get physical or attempt to detain without physical threat to me or those entitled to my protection. If somebody doesn't follow the rules, I ask them to leave. If they refuse, I call the police.

Even in the case of theft, I won't go hands on. I'll try to bluff them into surrendering and take them to a holding room until the police arrive. If they run, I'll be a good witness. I have NO qualified immunity. I'm not an employee of the state. That's not cowardice. In court I'll be judged by a jury that doesn't understand I'm not a cop and will hate me with the same passion reserved for police. They will hear that the boy I took down has severe injuries and was a good boy trying to turn his life around. That black eye proves brain damage because this Rent-a-cop thought he had authority.

Once a citizen detains another citizen, they must immediately notify a constable. (Police Officer) The constable will determine whether or not an arrest is warranted. And if the detaining citizen doesn't have a justifiable reason for the detainment, they may be the one arrested.

And I at least have a license that should provide a reason for my actions. A regular citizen won't even have that. Remember what an angle Travon Martin was. I'm not in hurry to be the next George Zimmerman.

Some info on Texas law, pertinent to citizens and security officers:

If you detain a suspect in an incident, it may be considered that you have placed him under citizen’s arrest.

This can only be done if it’s quickly followed up by a call to the police with the intention to remand this person into police custody.

Arrest

An arrest is defined by article 15.22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and states that: A person is arrested when he has been actually placed under restraint or taken into custody by an officer or person executing a warrant of arrest, or by an officer or person arresting without a warrant.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines arrest as: “To deprive a person of his liberty by legal authority.”

In simple terms an arrest is a form of lawful control by one person over the actions of another.

An arrest, in Texas law, is “The apprehension or detention of another in order that he may be forthcoming to answer for an alleged or supposed crime.“
An arrest may be made by a peace officer or a private citizen.
To deprive someone of their liberty or freedom of movement may be viewed as an arrest.

For an arrest to be lawful, acceptable and without immediate liability, it must result in the legal apprehension or detention of a person.

It must be done with the intention of presenting the person to a magistrate to answer for an illegal crime.
For an arrest to be lawful, acceptable and without immediate liability, it must result in the legal apprehension or detention of a person.
It must be done with the intention of presenting the person to a magistrate to answer for an illegal crime.

IF YOU, BY COMMUNICATION OR OTHER MEANS, MAKE A PERSON FEEL THAT THEY ARE NOT FREE TO GO, THEN YOU HAVE ARRESTED THEM.

CCP Chapter 14

CCP (14.01a) allows any person to make an arrest without a warrant under certain circumstances.

Including:

(1)When a felony is committed within the view of the person making the arrest.

(2)When an immediate breach of the peace is committed within the view of the person making the arrest.

(3)Preventing consequences of theft.

Detainment – Arrest

Security officers are not obligated or required to make an arrest!

Officer’s Responsibility

You may be right at the scene when a violation occurs, but you do not have to make an arrest.