Actually, the founding fathers wrote conclusively that our laws and constitution are based on British Common Law which originated BEFORE the Romans invaded, therefore they are PAGAN based laws, not Judeo/Christian based. If we are to be a nation based on the religion our constitution is culled from, you had better start begging Thor for forgiveness and denounce Palin... I mean Loki.

>> ^longde:
Since when did I defend the black dude? There are no victims or underdogs in this video, certainly not the pumped up klansman. They are both pieces of trash. What's fucked up is that people seem to gravitate toward one type of trash rather than dismissing both.>> ^GoodAttorney:
Oh, poopoo... on the you bad people celebrating racial violence. Race notwithstanding, I think we all like to see an underdog win and justice served. Here, the person initiating PHYSICAL aggression is not the victim.



How the fuck do you know he's a Klansman?

You must not understand US law. Both parties are guilty of something.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/mutual-affray/

A mutual affray is fighting by two or more persons. Intent to fight on part of both parties is required. Where evidence shows that one party acted in self-defense, that party is not guilty of mutual affray. The aggressor may be guilty of assault and battery, but neither party is guilty of mutual affray. State laws vary, but mutual affray may be a mitigating factor or defense to family abuse.

In many legal jurisdictions related to English common law, affray is a public order offence consisting of the fighting of two or more persons in a public place to the terror (in French: à l'effroi) of ordinary people (the lieges). Depending on their actions, and the laws of the prevailing jurisdiction, those engaged in an affray may also render themselves liable to prosecution for assault, unlawful assembly, or riot; in that event it is for one of these offences that they are usually charged.[1]

...

In the United States the English common law as to affray applies, subject to certain modifications by the statutes of particular states. [3][1]

My name is Robin (and I used to be an alcoholic). I live with my spouse (common-law/co-habitation) and am going to propose to her any day now. We have 2 awesome kids - a 5 YO boy and a 6 week old girl. I'm a full-time student studying Political Science (mix of Canadian and International politics), with a minor in legal studies. I will be done school in the spring. I also do contract work on the side ranging from logistics/coordination work, health research, conference facilitation, and other assorted work. I live in Ottawa (which is Canada's capital, NOT Toronto) but I am originally from Nunavut.

For fun I come to VS, partake of bud and beer with my homies, listen to hip hop (I love the sift because it brings me in contact with all kinds of cool music), read news, write letters to the editor, and play COD4. I plan on going into law school next fall, after which I'll probably find a full-time job as a policy analyst until I decide to run for office. I was heavily involved with a political party until about a year or 2 ago (the party screwed over someone near and dear to me, but they are now crawling back asking for forgiveness, so I may get involved again).

>> ^blankfist:
What if you're in a relationship and living with that person, but it's not "common law" until you live together for six years in California. What then? Should I vote single even though I'm in a relationship?

Fuck it's only 6 years? I'd better come up with an exit plan

>> ^blankfist:
What if you're in a relationship and living with that person, but it's not "common law" until you live together for six years in California. What then? Should I vote single even though I'm in a relationship?


Why you vote single rather that 'in a relationship' or 'common-law'?

6 years? Hot damn, thats a long time. Up here it's 1 year.

You should vote a-sexual Blankfist. The mere thought of you procreating sends chills down my back.

What if you're in a relationship and living with that person, but it's not "common law" until you live together for six years in California. What then? Should I vote single even though I'm in a relationship?

>> ^Farhad2000:
I prefer to go outside and get laid. But hey that's just me.


I have a common law spouse. I don't even have to go outside to get laid.

I'm really glad to see this video on the sift.

Anyone who wants to learn their rights under common law and how to deal effectively in any situation with the police should go here

TPUC.ORG


It's very powerful stuff in practice, it's also a very deep rabbit hole. Profoundly fascinating and life changing stuff.

Interesting - I got threatened with arrest for the *exact* same thing a couple of weeks ago. I questioned the cops as to which law they thought they were enforcing, made a note of their badge numbers, then reported them to their sergeant the following morning.

The sergeant confirmed that of course I wasn't breaking any law or statute, and looked quite alarmed when I told him the cops lied to me under corporate liability which was fraud.

Luckily for me I had been studying the common law and my rights on TPUC.org since last year. If you don't know the common law the cops will OWN you using all manner of statute and commercial contract law.



TPUC.org

TPUC.org

>> ^quantumushroom:
To QM and others who seem to think it is all about biology and procreating...if that is your argument then the same can be said about people who don't want children or can't have children. But I have a feeling that your not for banning them from getting married are you?
The pro-gay-marriage side keeps trying to make this into a civil rights/equality issue. It is not. Blacks fought for the SAME rights that Whites have; gays are fighting for a redefinition of the linchpin of society itself to suit their needs.
With the arrival of civil unions, the acceptance by the free market of gays as a marketing bloc and government as a voting bloc, most of the steam in the argument for gay equality is gone in the best way: it's been achieved! Even Elton John can't figure out what American gays are upset about; he has a British civil union and doesn't care what it's called.
Quantum, what exactly ARE the benefits of marriage?
The institution itself provides legal protections and advantages that live-ins don't have, to the point that in some states live-ins are considered married by "common law".
Marriage promotes order and discourages random sexual encounters which may spread disease or create offspring without parents to care for them.
Marriage provides a measure financial stability and a structured family unit extra-protected by laws in which children are better off.


Heavens no! Not rules and structure! Liberals will have strict rules for my taxes, guns, and health care...but this morality...it must be done away with.

To QM and others who seem to think it is all about biology and procreating...if that is your argument then the same can be said about people who don't want children or can't have children. But I have a feeling that your not for banning them from getting married are you?

The pro-gay-marriage side keeps trying to make this into a civil rights/equality issue. It is not. Blacks fought for the SAME rights that Whites have; gays are fighting for a redefinition of the linchpin of society itself to suit their needs.

With the arrival of civil unions, the acceptance by the free market of gays as a marketing bloc and government as a voting bloc, most of the steam in the argument for gay equality is gone in the best way: it's been achieved! Even Elton John can't figure out what American gays are upset about; he has a British civil union and doesn't care what it's called.

Quantum, what exactly ARE the benefits of marriage?

The institution itself provides legal protections and advantages that live-ins don't have, to the point that in some states live-ins are considered married by "common law".

Marriage promotes order and discourages random sexual encounters which may spread disease or create offspring without parents to care for them.

Marriage provides a measure financial stability and a structured family unit extra-protected by laws in which children are better off.

This is a thoughtful post from QM and deserves a thoughtful response!



First of all, equality is paramount in both law and religious faith. Equality is mandatory before and after law, and the highest laws of all countries and common wealths are your God given natural rights. In the UK for example the Queen's bible is the highest common law of the land (which is why you swear to tell the truth holding a copy).

This is not to say that those of religious faith won't be offended by equality in action, or those exercising their God given natural rights won't be offended by the response from people of faith. This is where the imbalance lies.

Freedom means having the right to choose any faith, or no faith at all.


Now THIS is important-
"Right now "equality" is too strong and thus freedom is weak."
IS THE SAME AS:
"All men are equal, but some are more equal than others"

The problem was that he wasn't willing to follow the normal procedures for getting his side heard. If he had followed normal procedure, which was to begin with an arraignment to enter your plea. At this time, if you feel unjustly accused you enter not-guilty and move on from there. He was not at his hearing nor his trial yet. He just felt like "I'm being inconvienced, so I will skip the normal judical process because I am a big man with a camera."
Also, while in court you are required to follow the judges orders and should show respect to the court.
From the Wiki...
"Contempt of court is a court order which, in the context of a court trial or hearing, deems an individual as having been disrespectful of the court, its process, and its invested powers. Often stated simply as "in contempt", or a person "held in contempt", it is the highest remedy of a judge to impose sanctions on an individual for acts which excessively or in a wanton manner disrupt the normal process of a court hearing.
A finding of contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behavior, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court. Typically judges in common law systems have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems."

Paul4Dirt, the California Supreme Court concluded marriage is a "fundamental right of free men," rather than a right that originates with the state, and in that sense, there seems to be a very good case that denying that right to marry constitutes discrimination.

In their ruling the California supreme court quoted a decision made in Perez vs. Sharp

'[w]ithout doubt, [the equal protection clause of the California Constitution] denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of one’s own conscience, and, generally, to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.’”

The Perez decision continued: “Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men.”

--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_8#2008:_California_Supreme_Court_ruling

I support the police officer. The media as usual tried to manipulate the public by labeling the dog as 'puppy' and showing the owner talking about the how important the dog was. It was clear the dog was running fast towards the officer. He perceived a danger to his life/risk of serious injury and used his firearm to protect himself (guidelines are similar for use of police firearms around the world). Plain and simply.

The idea of 'he could have gotten back to his car' is rubbish. How many times the owner or anybody else had to deal with a dog running full speed towards them? He could have easily pulled some bacon out of his back pocket and scratched the dog behind the ear... NO!!! It was a matter of about him or the dog.

I would love to see any of those so called 'animal lovers' to just sit with a police officer for a week and observe what they have to deal with, then show them the same video. Or worst yet: complete the police training to find out more about the guidelines to use their arms and appointments...

Re: 'trespassing cop'. You monkeys, how much do you about COMMON LAW. Anybody can walk up to your front door and knock with a legitimate inquiry. Until you tell them to get out there is nothing wrong with it.