Did LHO know how to drive? Does it matter?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

True. And like I said, an innocent party would have no problem helping out the police in the situation.

I agree. Remember that right after the shooting the police secured the TSBD and prevented everyone inside from leaving. And anyone outside from going in.

They were all questioned - except Oswald who had fled (in my opinion) earlier - and as far as I know all cooperated. Why wouldn't they?

There was no "reasonable suspicion" standard needed, as far as I know, to detain and question them since the police were involved in an emergency situation. Maybe the law has changed since then. I don't know anything about Texas laws on the matter and I'm very limited on my knowledge about US case law at that time.

[Rob Caprio]

As soon as Oswald punched McDonald in the face, Oswald had committed a crime.

JohnM

Since you live in Australia you may not be familiar with American law. In America if a police officer illegally stops you and attempts to detain you physically you have a right to defend yourself. This has been stated in numerous court rulings.

[Steve Howsley]

Since you live in Australia you may not be familiar with American law. In America if a police officer illegally stops you and attempts to detain you physically you have a right to defend yourself. This has been stated in numerous court rulings.

So haul him up before a judge. Let the judge decide.  You don't expect him to be allowed to simply walk away after punching a cop in the mouth. There's no country on earth where that would be allowed to happen.

[Bill Chapman]

So haul him up before a judge. Let the judge decide.  You don't expect him to be allowed to simply walk away after punching a cop in the mouth. There's no country on earth where that would be allowed to happen.

In US tort law you can be charged with assault just by raising your fist in a threatening manner towards another person. It only has to be shown that the person doing said threatening has the means to harm the other person.

[John Mytton]

Since you live in Australia you may not be familiar with American law. In America if a police officer illegally stops you and attempts to detain you physically you have a right to defend yourself. This has been stated in numerous court rulings.

Since you live in Australia you may not be familiar with American law.

Hahaha, you've lied about you name, you've lied about your photo and you hate the American Government can only prove that you are very unlikely to be an American. Komrade!

In America if a police officer illegally stops you and attempts to detain you physically you have a right to defend yourself.

No, Oswald was just asked an innocent question and then Oswald assaulted a Police Officer and you're saying that the cop should have just turned the other cheek? WOW!

This has been stated in numerous court rulings.

I'm sure it was stated but under what circumstances?

JohnM

[Howard Gee]

Since you live in Australia you may not be familiar with American law. In America if a police officer illegally stops you and attempts to detain you physically you have a right to defend yourself. This has been stated in numerous court rulings.

Since you live in Kookland you don't understand that Saint Patsy wasn't 'illegally' stopped and was very lucky he only got his face caved in while trying to 'defend' himself.

[Jon Banks]

I have no understanding at all about Texas laws in 1963 - and am unsure about US law at that time (pre-Terry) - but under current law there is no requirement of "probable cause" for the police to use in order to detain or question a person in exigent or emergency situations. That is the standard for so-called "Terry stops" and not for an emergency situation involving a crime in progress, which this was. 

Again: emergencies.

The standard in emergency situations is: "Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.' United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984)."

Baker's situation, for me, clearly falls in the above circumstances since he did not know who Oswald was or what he was doing. As he said in his 11/22 affidavit: "As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me."

Nothing about a man in the lunch roon buying a Coke. Who was this person? Was he a shooter? Was he an accomplice? Was he a lookout? It was certainly reasonable to me that this person could have been involved in some way (guess what? he was). Baker was investigating a situation in flux, a shooting in progress. How would he know who was part of that shooting and who wasn't? He couldn't, it was an emergency.

In fact, as we know, right after the shooting the DPD secured the entire building and detained every employee for questioning. Oswald would have been one of them had he not left earlier.

[/b]

TSBD wasn?t secured immediately. Lots of people entered and left the building in the minutes after the shooting. One of them was the news reporter who spoke to LHO moments before he left.

There was plenty of time for other Suspects to leave the building before the police locked it down.

This was 1963. The Dallas PD wasn?t prepared for events like that.

[Rob Caprio]

So haul him up before a judge. Let the judge decide.  You don't expect him to be allowed to simply walk away after punching a cop in the mouth. There's no country on earth where that would be allowed to happen.

So you know the laws of every country on earth? In America, at least in theory anyway, the police are not above the law so they have no right to physically attack you with no legal cause. I have cited court rulings on this, but unfortunately they are no longer available.