Jump to content


Member Since 08 Dec 2008
Offline Last Active Today, 08:01 AM

#2864607 Let's talk special teams

Posted by Montsta on Yesterday, 03:35 PM

Honestly whoever can catch the ball 100% of the time gets my support. Ginn never took it back to the house here and our next guy doesn't have to either. Just don't muff the catch and you're good. A muffed catch will lose you a game quicker than anything else. I need reliability over play making at this point.

Before Ginn got here I had a minor heart hiccup every time we received a punt or kick.

#2864009 Vladimir Putin

Posted by Montsta on Yesterday, 01:41 AM

So now that you're a google certified professional historian can you please tell me how the United States qualifies as an empire despite the fact that it isn't one in the traditional sense?

Or is this really just some of the same foreboding bullshit I usually hear from the mouths of YouTube commenters on truther videos like I suspect?

I heard they had Christian Bale doing American Psycho, but then asked Leonardo DiCaprio to play the role. After the success of Titanic he refused. They asked someone else and he refused too, so they went back to Christian Bale.

There's some history for your asses.

#2863890 Players check in this morning....

Posted by Montsta on 24 July 2014 - 09:06 PM

Moving to Sacramento...
I hope the fans there are a little less crazy than the band wagons you get in NC.

I'm a couple hours out from Sacramento. You ever gonna go to a Panthers-Niners game or come down to the Bay Area, message me.

#2862733 Have a feeling we're on a verge of WWIII.

Posted by Montsta on 24 July 2014 - 03:28 AM

its a shame really, the soviet union could be one of the most productive countries on the planet. there's a certain craftiness to stealing natural resources from others while leaving your own largely untapped.

just like the US.

It's almost as if the USA has been preparing for a world war over energy. So they spend 50 years in relatively minor wars and get into debt that will never be paid because when it all collapses America will have years of power at their disposal while other nations run out of energy resources that we've been living off of for years. Who gives a poo if war happens he who can power it the longest wins.

Sounds like a Tom Clancy novel. Good times.

#2862349 Winston says Benjamin blessed to play with Cam

Posted by Montsta on 23 July 2014 - 05:27 PM

Go steal some crab legs Winston.

Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

I would expect better from Panthers fans with all the laptop remarks we hear about Cam.

#2860993 NYPD kill a man after placing him in a chokehold

Posted by Montsta on 22 July 2014 - 12:27 PM

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm in no way saying it is a good idea to take a cops life if they use force during an unlawful arrest, as you will 100% be killed by another cop if you do so. Your best bet is to let them do what they do and sort it out later. I'm simply providing information that most of the populace doesn't know, and that's the fact that you have the right to use deadly force against a police officer during a wholly unlawful arrest.

Don't be stupid though.

#2860984 Why, Kraken....why?

Posted by Montsta on 22 July 2014 - 12:20 PM

Still love me some Greg Hardy. I give zero fugs.

Dominate this season Greg!

#2860979 Greatest Movie Characters of All Time

Posted by Montsta on 22 July 2014 - 12:17 PM

Andy Dufresne

#2860464 NYPD kill a man after placing him in a chokehold

Posted by Montsta on 21 July 2014 - 10:16 PM

I usually agree with your posts man, as I lurk here often but your backwards on this one. The USSC and the trial courts specifically made mention in this oft quoted case that you can only resist if its effected with excessive force. Internet heros have twisted the ruling to fit their argument. Your sentence " because he is too big for them to subdue otherwise" basically nullifies your "excessive" argument because your basically saying the force leading up to that was insufficient to achieve their goal, therefore an escalation in force was necessary and not excessive.

The following are the legal precedents regarding resisting an unlawful arrest. They almost all remark that you may break away from an unlawful arrest, not that it's only allowed to happen after excessive force is being used.

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

And thank you for keeping things civil.

#2860431 NYPD kill a man after placing him in a chokehold

Posted by Montsta on 21 July 2014 - 09:44 PM

It wasn't unlawful if they had PC for an arrest, and like I stated who's to say what happened before the camera was turned on. Also you missed the point where you're ONLY able to resist an unlawful arrest where the officer is using excessive force to effect it. If these cops did have PC for an arrest, what amount of force would you say is excessive to get control of a 400 lb male?

You are allowed to resist an unlawful arrest at any time, so I don't know what you're talking about. You can only use the force part if met with force.

So 400 lb. man resists arrest, because there is no legal, suspicious or probable reason for him to be arrested. Legal.

The cops then use excessive force because he is too big for them to subdue otherwise. Illegal.

The man is then within his rights to match that force. Legal.

So we have large black man 2 - cops 0 on our legal scoreboard.

Problem is we live in a police state where it's generally accepted to just bow down and take it for fear of being shot or beaten. It shouldn't be this way and change NEEDS to happen.

Once again, you are a cop. You are here to protect me, and serve me. Not murder (which is what this was) with impunity.

#2860418 NYPD kill a man after placing him in a chokehold

Posted by Montsta on 21 July 2014 - 09:28 PM

With further reading, I looked into that case and while interesting, the scope is so narrow it would be hard to replicate the exact set of events needed to carry it out. Also the case rests with an officer using an unlawful amount of force, until which is used you can not resist a technically "unlawful" arrest, however shitty that may sound to you.

Well you can use deadly force in defense of someone else being unlawfully arrested. So what should have happened in this NYPD situation is that a bystander, after hearing the man say I can't breathe during an unlawful arrest, should have used any and all force necessary to get the cops off him. The cops should all be in the hospital or in prison. If you are a cop, you are there to serve me. Which means you should be helping me before making any kind of knee jerk assumption that results in a deadly chokehold.

#2860406 NFL mastermind Walterfootball does it again!

Posted by Montsta on 21 July 2014 - 09:08 PM

Lol you have the best mlb in football, one of the best OLB, but it's a negative because the 3rd LB isn't also a superstar? Lol.

#2860356 Huddle-isms

Posted by Montsta on 21 July 2014 - 08:05 PM

I think I got here in 05. Can't remember though.

#2860344 NYPD kill a man after placing him in a chokehold

Posted by Montsta on 21 July 2014 - 07:56 PM

Lets say that the call was dispatched as a fight, no suspect description. You arrive on scene and see a large man with his hands on someone. We will say he actually was breaking the fight up, but your first thought is he might be the aggressor. So you focus on him until you can straighten out whats going on. He is in an agitated state and the only way you can get him under control until you can get to the bottom of it is to handcuff him, aka detain him.

This could very well be the story, or it might not. You are taking for gospel what the video narrator was saying. I only commented in here because any time a video like this comes up you start seeing people who have never been in a tense situation before.. ( Why didn't you shoot him in the leg? Why didn't you talk to him for 20 minutes? Or the biggest LOL I've seen in here, using deadly force if you think you shouldn't be arrested.) automatically blaming the popo. Sometimes they are in the wrong, possibly in this case, but the automatic hatred gets old.

So because you're a cop, who is supposed to uphold the law of the land, you disagree with a supreme court ruling (the biggest and final law of the land) that citizens can use deadly force if it's reasonable during an unlawful arrest? Sounds about par for the course for most law enforcement agencies, pick and choose the laws you want to follow.

#2860332 Tony Dungy: "I wouldn't have taken him." (Michael Sam)

Posted by Montsta on 21 July 2014 - 07:48 PM

Sterling didn't want black people at his games. Dungy doesn't want gay people on his team. There's not much of a difference.

He can use the "media circus, distractions" excuse all he wants. He's just another religious man who doesn't like gay people. Dungy almost signed Mike Vick & his media circus after he got out of prison. He had no problem with the media circus that would've came with signing a dog torturing POS, but sign a gay man? No, we just can't deal with all the media attention and distractions.

Horse sh*t.

Sterling didn't want his girlfriends to come to Clippers games with black men.

He didn't say on the recording he didn't want black people at his games.

Yes, both he and Dungy are entitled to their opinions, as much as most people may disagree with them.

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.