Forum Post: The Trickery of the Word "Violence" - How US Law Enforcement and Courts replaces "abuse" and "injury" with legal terms like "violence" and "assault" to be able to put anyone in prison they want.
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 28, 2011, 10:15 p.m. EST by joe100
(306)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
People fight and law enforcement has no right to arrest people who fight among themselves, when there has been no permament or severe physical bodily harm, even if the losing party calls the police.
The US law enforcment systems illegally use laws and defintions to arbitraily put people in prison for physical activities that are "normal" and usual in human relationshps. The laws and defintions involved that help the legal system continue its corruption are: 1) Violence - almost any activity can be defined as being "violent" in the legal system 2) Abuse -since using this word would restrict the law enforcement's ability to put innocent people in jail, this word has been replaced in law with words like "violence" and "assualt" wherein almost anything can be defined as being "violence" or "assault". 3) Injury - also is another word that has been replace with "violence" and "assault". 4) Assault has been defined as "touching" someone - ridiculous. People fight. When people fight, between friends, married couples, business associates, this is not a cause to put them in prison, so private corporations can earn their $50,000 per prisoner per year. The entire system has been created to continue slavery, and let private corporations earn money on prisoners.
About thirty years ago, for the first time in American history, the government granted itself rights to arrest anyone that "touched" anyone else. This includes brothers, friends, husbands and wives, father and son, everyone!
The trickery was beautifully orchestrated! They use and legally define the term "violence". Violence already conjures up feelings and thoughts of horribly physical abuse, yet its legal definition is FAR from being ethical and correct.
Violence is defined by today's judges and attorneys, as any touch at all. So if a person is "touched", not abused or harmed, or not even humiliated, just touched, the person who touched can be arrested.
The world was MUCH better off, like in the 1940s where men could fight for themselves without swat teams arresting them. If a man stole from another man, the thief would get their butt kicked in, and good. Without arrests, without guns, without killing.
What happened to the MANO e MANO fair fights between men? The world would be a MUCH better place if men had to be afraid of other men. But today, the police protect thieves and murderers from their victims after the crime, and there is a disgusting effect of these "violence" laws.
The proper word is "abuse" and "harm" and not "violence", because most physical contact can be described as "violent", but many of these "touches" cannot be reasonably defined as abuse or harmful or causing injury.
Now let's move to the Occupy "non-violent" attitude. By definition Occupy IS violent. In every way. Occupy pushes police horses back, Occupy stands in the way causing businesses to close, and it goes on and on and on. Clearly, Occupy IS violent, which is OK. But Occupy is NOT abusive and does cause unwarranted HARM or INJURY.
So why does Occupy call itself "non violent"? It's a good idea to do this, because its an answer to the "violence" laws which make no sense.
If "domestic violence" was termed "domestic abuse" or "domestic injury" most supposed domestic violence criminals would not be considered criminals and would not be in jail. People have been hitting and slapping each other for thousands of years. Putting 20% of the population in jail for family fights is nothing short of group insanity on part of the police, judges and attorneys.
And don't misunderstand - I am not for "abuse".
Hence the term "violence" was used by the courts to allow the courts to be able to put anyone in jail, because almost any physical touching can be determined to be "violence" according to the legal definition. But abuse and injury? the courts don't want to base their decisions on these better measures, because that would lessen their power to put minorities or anyone they want, in prison, for a long time.
Friends, business partners and married couples should be able to slap each other around, if not abusive and not causing serious injury, without having a swat team show up. In fact, because police protect criminals from discipline from their community, criminals do more crime.
Diplomacy only happens when each side is "packing" the same weapons. If a police officer wants to arrest a US citizen, and the US citizen didn't to anything wrong, the police officer WILL NEVER be diplomatic if the US Citizen isn't packing anything. But if the US Citizen is packing force, there may be diplomacy, then the police may talk about it. Same with countries. If a country doesn't have the weapons, and the US gives an order, if the other country doesn't follow the order, the US may deploy weapons and force the country to do what it wants. But if the little country gets nuclear weapons, then the two countries may be diplomatic and talk things out.
Same with Occupy. Though Occupy is not packing firearms like the police, Occupy is packing a real strong force, the force of many unified people. This is how the people in Oakland pushed back on the police horses to prevent them from separating the protestors. The only way, usually, people will be diplomatic, is if the other side is packing an equal or similar force.
So for many Americans, a "call for US citizens to bear arms" is not a call for violence, its a call for diplomacy. People are much more diplomatic when real force must be reckoned with...
Thus, VIOLENCE IS NOT A BAD thing all the time. Love making can be defined as "violent" according to US laws. ABUSE is a bad thing. INJURY is a bad thing. Prison is a bad thing.
The legal system is a business and it is designed to make a profit and that is why so many people are pissed off at our legal system that is corrupt and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
It should have never been allowed to be a business by the masses.
Excellent point - get money out of the courts -
Well, when that pesky amendment was vaporized, that prevented "esquires", barristers and attorneys from holding public office, that was the end of Common Law and the beginning of presumptive guilt enforced by courts with sanctioned jurisdiction, infested with codes of which reasonable persons could not be expected to understand yet are held accountable to and subject to be incarcerated by, even if nobody or nothing was harmed.... and on and on
so attorneys could proliferate and hold all Americans captive
you don't think so?
Try taking a simple matter through even one of our nations General Sessions courts, without an attorney.
The government by and for the people was intended to be within the grasp, and not extending beyond, that of reasonable persons, NOT, barely within the grasp and most subsequent legislation passed and written by teams of attorneys, perverted by twisting esoteric words, are such that even LEGAL authorities and experts debate them to infinity!
Attorneys, all branches of the establish Justice System, Law Enforcement and most all government employees are opposed to restoring the Rule of Law and sovereign persons only being subject to common law. Their numbers are many, and that doesn't even include inert citizens who simply do not understand, and therefore automatically oppose such common sense!
http://occupywallst.org/forum/interesting-read-about-the-constitution-and-corpor/#comment-404410
Hey I am on your side and agree with you totally.
We are all in it together and it will not be easy to educate enough others of the simple elegance of these ideals. Keep the faith, Barb!
non violence means being aggressive without hurting anyone physically.
"married couples"
While I do believe there is such a thing as spousal abuse, and abused spouses should have some recourse, there are cases where even intervention in domestic violence becomes meddling.
The worst example I can think of is a victim I know who didn't want to call the police because she thought she could handle the fighting and the occasional slapping around she was taking. Finally, things got way out of hand, the spouse tore a door off the hinges and twisted her arm so she called the police.
BOTH were arrested because the police asked the male if she had hit him and he said yes. So the "victim" who everyone kept advising to call the police to solve this problem now has an arrest record, even though the "case" against her was dismissed when they finally got before a judge. It is still an arrest.
well thats how it works. Police arrest, they aren't there to hear your story. That's what courts and judges and juries are for. To hear your side. As in 'tell it to the judge'.
This is a checks and balance system that keeps any one body from becoming too powerful. An arrest is always an arrest, but it is not a conviction. That happens at court time.
It is unjust. The person who called for help should not be arrested, should not have to "tell it to the judge".
People who think like you do are what is wrong with this country.
Maybe you are a cop.
Its not the cops job to be the judge. That's the judge's job. Its not 'my opinion', it's what their jobs are to make it the most just and protect people. That way cops don't have the right to arrest you AND convict you on the spot just because you hate them because you don't like getting arrested when you are fighting in your trailer park. When both people are throwing punches, both get arrested for fighting.
This shouldn't be hard to understand. I can't really use smaller words.
I will ignore your insults and repeat:
"People who think like you do are what is wrong with this country."
Just because "that's how it is" doesn't mean it is how it should be and it doesn't make it just or fair.
And people like you don't use their heads. Of course it should be that way-- that the same person shouldn't be able to arrest plus convict someone. Unless you mean that when two people physically are throwing punches at each other, both shouldn't be arrested? That's just being angry you got arrested for getting caught doing something you shouldnt be doing.
Unless you mean that only men should be arrested when couples fight? Isn't that sexist?
So if the husband called the police to claim the wife had hit him you would be okay with the wife being arrested?
The person who calls the police for help should not be arrested for doing so. It has nothing to do with gender, don't twist the meaning to fit your emotional hot buttons.
If you read the exact details of what I posted there should be a clue or two as to why this particular situation was wrong.
If you don't get it, then I repeat:
""People who think like you do are what is wrong with this country."
And what's up with your childish and sexually agressive nick?
It isn't about gender. You are implying that only a victim calls the police for help. From working in the criminal justice system (prosecution department) I know that many times the batterer will call the police to claim they were attacked and had to defend themself from their spouse. Police show up and the caller has no marks and the "attacker" is beaten to a pulp. Under your scenario the caller is not arrested and the other one goes to jail.
That is why if both sides claim the other hit them, the police, by law, have to arrest both parties. It doesn't matter who called the police.
What is sexually "aggressive" about my username? Testicle phobic?
"The world was MUCH better off, like in the 1940s where men could fight for themselves without swat teams arresting them."
I love classic films and it is impressive the way people punch each other out when needed and the way women gleefully slap men across the face when deserved.
I wish we could be like that now.
What a waste of taxpayer money to call the cops for every little thing.
I must say, I'm a woman and I've been groped on the subway and on the street. When it happened, I took the law into my own hands and smacked the offenders.
It wasn't something I thought about before I did it, it was pure reflex. I guess I was born in the wrong era.
I also guess I was lucky they didn't do anything pussy-ish like call the cops on me or try to sue me, LOL
And yea, my post isn't satire, I really think a good punch in the nose to settle a dispute isn't always a bad thing, as long as the fight is fair.
here here... most people deserve a smack, ONCE in a while.... even me! Thanks for your post! Especially coming from a woman!
prison guard unions like this kind of thing because it guarantees them job security.
public unions: fucking shit up since JFK let the cat out of the bag as FDR rolled in his grave.
It's abuse if my wife dont make me a sammich when I tell her to get in there and do it.
In the Koran, it is written that thou shalt zip tie her down and stomp her in her whore mouth and around her blue eyes for refusal to submit to her eminent and sovereign master.
Damn, donchu knownuttin?
PRISON UNION, COP UNIONS, ... that's the 99% cover for OWS.
Never seen a union they didn't like, trouble is today ALL unions are fascist in model, cuz its the ONLY way to make a buck in the union biz, public unions, and the only public unions that make money are teachers, cops, and prison guards. Even teachers are a joke today, as schools are really prisons with metal detectors and fences. Everybody in the USA is a criminal, and everybody will spend their life in prison.
So what do we do? Join a militia for protection? Tolerate? What?
it's a difficult question and the answer isn't in an OWS consensus, and requires knowledge of history, Like I have said before in this forum prior to the 1890's in the USA all law enforcement was by sheriff, who knew his townfolk, and they paid his salary, Post 1890 the corporations created what we have today 'modern city law enforcement' where the COP's beat your children, and get their salary from the power's that be, So to answer your question, we disband the police-force, and return to the early model of sheriff&deputy, and the people elect judges who control the cops and the judges come from the people, not from the fucking corporate legal world. Ok, do you fucking understand?
i agree - I got my firearms - I am NO longer afraid of police. It's a nice feeling....
Great, another Travis Bickle on the streets.
Many people honestly try to educate young people and inspire them to learn.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Sadly today the public education unions are the problem, and not the solution. The teacher of today is a pale comparison to the of 100 years ago where teaching was the 3-r's, ... today the 3-r's have been dropped from curriculum, which is why the CIA FACTBOOK lists the USA on having the same reading/writing level as zimbabwe.
And they always knock Zimbabwe, don't they? The unions are all the teachers have to keep them from being totally pauperized. My daughter is a middle school teacher in The Bronx, and she works almost constantly what with lesson plans and marking papers, and calling and seeing parents. She also shells out a few thousand dollars a year on school supplies that Bloomberg can't afford.
"People fight and law enforcement has no right to arrest people who fight among themselves, when there has been no permament or severe physical bodily harm, even if the losing party calls the police."
Your basis for that statement?
here is partial basis If you can't connect the dots....
http://fatherlessgeneration.com/
So you can't explain your post in your own words? The link you posted has nothing to do with the question I asked.
Fine I will connect the dots for you. Police put people in jail for non-criminal things, like fighting, doing drugs, etc. We end up with a fatherlessgneration, because all the father are in prison. Get it? That's the basis - you really couldn't connect the dots there? cmon - you are smarter than that - stop letting your ego slow down your brain....
I can see that logic was not one of your strong subjects in school.
First, the link you posted not once mentions any of the positions you have taken.
Second, you make an assumption that is not based on fact = fighting is not a criminal activity. You then make a giant leap from that silly position to conclude that all fathers are in prison and therefore we end up with a fatherless generation. to support your position you provide a link to a website that doesn't support your position.
Guess you shouldn't have dropped out of junior high.
Why are you so rude? Does it make you feel good? I have a college degree in Economics BS in Math computer science i was hired as a lead software architect to create air traffic controller systems for Delta Airlines, I was hired as a lead think tank leader for bank of america and UPS.
I am sure I am twice the athlete you are. I ran track, played basketball in HS. Was athlete of the year - I had the trophy and I didn't buy it. I went to one of the top 5 gifted high schools according to US News & World Report, and was one of the brightest students there.
I am sure you are probably not that talented, like me. I am a professional stand up comic - won several contests.
I code in over 30 computer languages. do you work for google? Maybe you are just hired to annoy me.
Harry - here is the logic, I will connect the dots even more for you.
Arrest people for doing non-crimes and put them in jail for a long time. Then after a long time, lots of fathers are in prison because of that, their kids have no discipline, and they get into trouble too, all because of
"People fight and law enforcement has no right to arrest people who fight among themselves, when there has been no permament or severe physical bodily harm, even if the losing party calls the police." If you don't understand the logic, ask your parents, maybe they can help you. How old are you? 19? You sound immature. What are your talents? What have you done with your life?
Ok, I will use simple words so you understand and maybe you can answer my initial question that you continue to ignore:
"People fight and law enforcement has no right to arrest people who fight among themselves, when there has been no permament or severe physical bodily harm, even if the losing party calls the police."
What is the legal and factual basis for your claim that the police do not have the right to arrest people that are fighting?
do you know the definition of battery? Do you know the definition of assault?
With your logic people who are arrested for fighting can sue the police for false arrest, right? Who decides if the injury is permanent? Who decides if there is severe physical bodily harm? Don't say the police because if you are as smart as you say you know the police are determine if a violation of the penal code took place, not the extent of injuries.
Post one actual situation where a person was arrested for fighting, was sent to jail "for a long time", and as a result their kid/s grew up without discipline and the kids ended up getting in trouble.
As a private security officer, which I have trained, yes I know the definition of assault. Do you? Read the previous posts - dude - when everyone's father is in jail, like in fatherlessgeneration.com , there's a problem. People are in jail because private corporations earn about $50k a year for each prisoner. The US has BY FAR more people in prison, per capita, then any nation in the world. If you want police to keep arresting everyone and putting them in prison because of their race, and then claim the reason is "assault" or "drugs" that's your opinion. We live in a police state now, and for most people, they don't like it.
Why, if two brothers, or two friend, why if they fight, is it ok to put them in prison for assault? I don't get it.
Harry - have a nice day, we are different wave lengths. You don't get it, and I can't help you with that.
Hmm, now you are a security guard but you have all the credentials you claimed in a prior post.
"If you want police to keep arresting everyone and putting them in prison because of their race, and then claim the reason is "assault" or "drugs" that's your opinion."
Where did that rant come from? Nowhere in your other posts did race come into the discussion but now that you find you can't answer my question you change the nature of the discussion.
Plus, simple battery and/or assault does not result in a prison sentence. Prisons are for felonies. County jails are for misdemeanors like simple assault and/or battery. Misdemeanor convictions result in sentences of 6 months or less. With jail overcrowding, most of the misdemeanor convictions are serving less than 10% of their sentence or not serving at all. So I don't know where you are getting your idea that a battery and/or assault is resulting in felony convictions that send the criminal to state prison for years. That may apply if the criminal has prior convictions or there is permanent injury or disfigurement.
Good luck with security guard job. Do you get discounts at the place you are guarding?
You are such a schmuck. I did training for a security guard - why would someone who earns $100k to $250k a year work as a security guard? I am starting my own agency asshole.
I would like to talk to you face to face - then you would not be so rude.
Tell all your bullshit to the million men that are in jail for touching assaults and drugs and other non-criminal things
So what do you do in life? Professional asshole? I think you would be good at that. Why are you part of occupy? Just to have fun annoying people? Why should I answer any of your questions. My IQ is twice yours, you are a brat student, and you are not here to learn anything, nor have a nice exchange of ideas. Why are you here? Are you hired by the corp greed people to screw with everyone?
I have a friend of mine who is a police officer, a lawyer, and a medical doctor, and has 5 black belts in various martial arts. See people like me and him, we do stuff. What do you do? What is your profession? Do you have one?
" million men that are in jail for touching assaults"
Okay, now you are just making up stuff. i doubt that any of the boasting you have posted is true because you lack of basic logic and knowledge about the law raises many doubts in my mind.
Why don't you ask your police officer attorney doctor what he thinks about your idea that people beating up each other is really not a crime. Let me know his answer when he is done laughing at you, that is if you really have such a friend. Remember, the friends you make up in your head don't really count as friends.
I really don't care if you don't believe me. You can believe I made it all up - i just don't care. You still have not told me what you are qualified to do, i am guessing you are still in college, searching yourself. And of course you are taking things out of context. MANY men are in prison for stupid things that are non-criminal. there is a lot cruel and unusual punishment. i would guess you are white, maybe from the midwest, and that you have no black friends from the hood - so you have no idea what is going on. Where are you? What do you do?
Friends i make up in my head? whatever - just told you about one of the most amazing men I have ever come across... and that's all you have to say.
I guess Bruce Lee never played ping pong with num-chucks either, right? Except there is a clip on youtube - so maybe you believe that.
Have a nice life... People like you make Occupy worse - what are you going to do to help occupy? Nothing I imagine except annoy people - that seems your best trait.
I will bet people in your own family know you to be the most annoying person in the family - is this true? Do they call you AnnoyBoy?
I had a cousin like you, once....
I don't see anyone else on this board coming to your defense. You keep on arguing that fighting and violence between people should not be a criminal offense and understand that the smiling looks you get are not from people agreeing with you but from people feeling sorry for you and trying to think of a way to graciously walk away.
The other point is, everyone does NOT need police, with guns, and swat teams, with guns, to get into everyone's business. Men can handle their own battles. That's why in the US, there is a right to bear arms. We don't need police fighting all our battles, nor protecting criminals nor protecting people that need a slap in the face.
I don't really care if the white bred people on this site agree with me. there are hundreds of black men that do, and I have spoken with them, and I work with young men and older men in Atlanta georgia where they understand. I don't really care if anyone on this site agrees with me.
People have been fighting and slapping each other for thousands of years. Suppose 20% of the population slap each other and fight once in a while... well let's just put 20% of the population in jail, even thought there was no grave harm. and you are mistaken, a woman did agree with me, and she told me a story of how she got groped while walking on the street, and she slapped the hell out of the guy, and went on her way. She agreed with me.
"joe100 said 0 minutes ago at Dec. 2, 2011, 3:29 p.m. EST (delete) you be a punk and were you the brightest student in the class? doubtful. do you have any talent? Doubtful. Are you a hero? doubtful. All you do is doubt whatever else says that is good."
Don't send me private messages. If you have something to say, post it for everyone to see.
I don't think anything you posted is "good". Condoning violence so your friends can stay out of jail seems dumb at best. your position doesn't seem to be that of a super-genius you claim to be. Maybe momma slapped you once too many times.
Private Messages joe100 said 19 minutes ago at Dec. 2, 2011, 3:49 p.m. EST (delete) How about this... tell EVERYONE I have told you to FUCK YOURSELF I dont' give a flying FUCK if everyone knows you are a prick or that I think YOU area prick - go ahead and post this to the whole fucking world - really don't care.
I am disappointed in you. I thought your charade about being the guy who developed air traffic control software for Delta and being the guy hired to be the lead think tank leader for B of A (really proud of that?) and UPS, along with being the brightest student of your school would hold out much longer.
But ever since your silly argument about violence has been deflated you have regressed to who you really are. It obviously isn't the person you claimed you were in your "resume" post. That person, whoever's resume you copied, would never ever take the position that violence between two people should be a non-criminal activity and slapping women around is okay. You then make it an African-American issue. I seriously doubt you are representing any one particular race by claiming violence is okay or should be excused because someone is Black, White, Latino, etc. Are you?
Wow, your true colors are shining through. "white bred people on this site"? So people who don't agree with you aren't ghetto enough for you? Again, I am really doubting your resume of intelligence.
The "fact" that hundreds of black men you asked (really doubt you did) agree with you that slapping women around is okay or fighting is acceptable says more about the men you allegedly talked with then about the "unfairness" of assault and battery criminal statutes.
Did you ask the woman you talked to what she would do if the guy she slapped turned around and beat the shit out of her? Would she still say no need to get the police involved? doubt it.