I was going to answer all your points in detail but some really aren't relevant such as how many hands John had full and were there any witnesses. In short we don't know because those points never arose in the play and therefore neither of us can rely on them as facts one way or the other. Whether or not you think it worth while to risk your life trying to educate a policeman or simply getting one up on him - well that's your business. I'll agree to differ with you on that point.
Now the important part.
john-james did EVERYTHING right. That's the advantage of a play-scenario, you can consider responses for as long as you like, and i was very particular. The original stated aim was to establish jurisdiction, but the extension for me was to demonstrate an example of evading or gaining from legal arrest and i think that was achieved. Am i wrong?
Yes, totally wrong. John was arrested and all he gained was a blow to his health possibly resulting in death or serious injury.
John never had jurisdiction. Jurisdiction means control and the control was in the hands of Sweeney from start to finish. Why? He's a policeman with a truncheon, a taser, probably wearing body armour and with a radio to call for backup.
John had the options of escalating the encounter or attempting to de-fuse it and that's as far as his control of the situation went. He chose the former and was tazed for his trouble.
Please tell me how john-james broke legislation re: obstructing a POLICE OFFICER when said officer has (verifiably) gained neither joinder nor commercial jurisdiction? He can't exercise any supposed 'police' (as opposed to 'constable') powers until he has consent via an admitted 'name' (joinder). He certainly can't do it under oath.
You seem to think that what is right or wrong can stop a man from acting how he will. News flash - right and wrong don't make the slightest bit of difference. It is what Sweeney THOUGHT was right or wrong that is important. You think he was going to listen to a suspicious looking man who was being a smart-arse and whom he suspected of being involved in a crime? Not likely! Sweeney THOUGHT John was obstructing him, which of course he was, he THOUGHT he had the authority to do something about it - so he did! John wants to argue his point? He should take it to court. That's the right place for it.
a) you really thought that was his full 'agency' name, and
b)you don't really pay attention when reading my posts,
you see because of the easily-missed nuances of the 'name game' i use the same name in all my scenario's. This is for ease of memory...
I had no idea that you use the same name all the time in your posts. I do pay attention, I just don't have access to the intricacies of how your mind works. So yes, I (and Sweeney) made the reasonable presumption that "John James" was your character's full name - not that it makes the slightest bit of difference to the outcome of the scenario.
Whether he had or not in this scenario is immaterial, irrelevant because he never gave his 'agency' name.
Oh boy, you couldn't be more wrong. I advise you to find out how presumption works - particularly in court.
(Btw his full 'agency' name is Mr John James Doe).
Incorrect. It would be "John James DOE". "Mr" is not a name, it is a job title.
Finally, I don't think we're competing, just expressing differences of opinion. What made you ask the question?