This is seriously troubling

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

This is outrageous. I can't believe they want harsher penalties for people who assault police officers. If I am at a rally or protest, I should be allowed to assault a police officer without fear of being charged with a felony.

Nowhere in the article did it say anything about the definition of resisting arrest being changed. Nice way to totally mischaracterize the facts. If you are at a protest and you lay down and let your body go limp, that is not resisting arrest. If you strike an officer, that is resisting arrest. I don't think there is too much confusion there.

I am not a person who think cops can do no wrong. If there is misconduct on the part of a policeman, he needs to be held accountable. I think police should actually be held to an even higher standard than civilians. That being said, I'm not going to second-guess every split second decision a police officer makes. I will give them the benefit of the doubt on a close call. But there are plenty of times where there is misconduct where it is not a close call. In those cases, I will be the first person to call for the officer to be fired and maybe even charged with a crime if applicable.

I just love it when you rail against a point that wasn't made. If you assaulted a police officer you would be charged with ASSAULT Rupe. ASSUALT <> Resisting Arrest. Ateam NAILED IT. Resisting arrest is basically anything the cops want it to be. You mouth off to them and they rough you up well you were resisting arrest. Why were they trying to arrest you in the first place? Try the catch all "impeding pedestrian traffic" which again is anything they want it to be.

http://www.thefutureorganization.com...inking-cap.gif