k-9 dogs never identify themselves as officers and just attack.so why are people given so much time for fighting police dogs?
isint mauling someone considered deadly or excessive force? and dont say police dogs are only trained to bite and hold because cops are trained to serve and protect just ask abner louima. the question is why is a german shepards bite force of over 1,060 newtons (238 lbf) considered something the average person is just going to allow to happen to them without any resistance. 842 NE 2d 443 - Ind: Court of Appeals, 2006 decision ruled that a citizen has the right to resist an officer that has used unconstitutionally excessive force in effecting an arrest, but the force used to resist the officer's excessive force may not be disproportionate to the situation. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/in-court-of-appeals/139... why is this ruling not applied to a police dog? who attacks someone without identifying itself in a potentially lethal manner. rodney mcgee called a police dog to testify in florida. dog couldnt testify as to why he smelled drugs even though none were found. how can a police dog justify biting somone who is already surrendered? and not resisting?6 AnswersLaw Enforcement & Police5 years ago
Was Walter Conkrite firing a machinegun at enemy aircraft.. as a journalist. an exception or are there rules allowing it in war?
Walter Conkrite as a war corrosponded was told to man a machine gun and, engage enemy aircraft or at least attempt to do so to the best of his ability..does the military allow a journalist to engage the enemy if there is an emergency or are civilians operating even small arms forbidden? Geraldo Rivera was said to be armed while doing war correspondence. Could he be ordered to lay down suppression fire in an emergency or would it be considered duress, and thus protecting a senior officer from disciplinary action for doing so? Or are civilians strictly forbidden from any weapons handling whatsoever.3 AnswersMilitary6 years ago
is adverse possession of a house and constructive possession of drugs basically the same thing? or a legal loophole?
basically constructive possesion means if your standing next to drugs they magically belong to you. if you stand next to a crack rock its automatically yours but stand the same exact distance next to a diamond rock....and suddenly its not your possesion anymore? wtf?
then comes adverse possession of a house. basically constructive possesion? meaning you stand next to the house now it is magically your possession?. i cant figure it out. in one instance your proximity to an object makes it you the possessor for legal purposes (or at least sentencing purposes). in another instant standing next to a jewelry display means you possess this jewelry but if you grab it they will lock you up and say there is no proof you own it. however if it was drugs in the same circumstances you own it and the proof is your proximity.
so do people exploit the constructive possession law and call it adverse possession? because of their proximity to a house but using the same legal principle as if it were drugs? because by this principle that means at one point or another throughout our daily routine that we have had possession (as defined by legal purposes, specifically sentencing purposes) of numerous objects on a daily basis. and its confusing4 AnswersLaw & Ethics6 years ago