Another Bullsh$@ Manufactured story to provoke the race card.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Yes, the law is not always right.

When it doesn't suit you, eh?

Is this argument presentable for everyone that has an issue with the way the law works?

Are you suggesting there are not, and have never been immoral and unfair laws? Or are you just attacking for arguments sake?

In the time I have spent on the MT (since '09)... on no occasion has the argument you presented ever been accepted (outside of referring to things such as Sharia Law).

I've been very outspoken towards facets of the law I disagree with in different contexts, however I accept the application of the law as it is written and practiced. It is what it is.

You're trying to demonize this officer as he performed his duties within the boundaries afforded to him. If you wanted to spend your time criticizing those boundaries... then fair enough, but you're spending your energies attacking him when he... get this... has done nothing wrong- whether you care to admit it or not.

Have you read your exchanges with Last 12? Your last few retorts sound like, "I know you are but what am I." Come on, man.

I'm confused, are you saying that no one has ever accepted the argument that some laws are unjust?
There are entire threads devoted to the just or unjust nature of laws...marijuana prohibition, same-sex marriage, gun control, death ppenalty, etc.

Don't be confused- it's not that challenging.

Many have debated the spirit or nature of laws, however to my recollection... none have convicted a police officer as abusive for applying the law in a legal manner.

If you wish to speak of unjust laws or advocate for police officers to have less authority... that is fine; however, this isn't what you have been doing: you have attacked this human being for his work and labelled him abusive because you disagree with the laws he upholds for us.

Did you find any dirt on him for patterns of abuse? Is he the real shitbird you've made him out to be? Is he (as you seem to imply) like most of the other cops- a power tripping, racist, asshole looking to bust some chops?

Point blank: do you accept that this officer was within his legal limitations dealing with this woman?

rgambs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

dignin said:

The moral of this story is to never question authority, do as you're told. Comply citizen.....or I can arrest you and make your life a living hell.

Some say, "why sir? I am within my rights"
Some say, "yes sir massa sir!"

And I'm the silly one...

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Yes, the law is not always right.

When it doesn't suit you, eh?

Is this argument presentable for everyone that has an issue with the way the law works?

Do you think a police officer should be legally justified asking your wife to exit her vehicle so he can ogle her?
According to Last, that would be within the confines of the law.

It's not according to me. It's according to the law.

I've heard you use this example a couple of times in this thread and I don't understand why you're so worried about cops ogling your wife.

That's a deflection, I didn't say it was something I worried about.
Are you saying that is fine by you? You have avoided the scenario as many times as I have posited it.

I'm saying that if a cop asked my wife to get out of the car, she obligated to by law. If he did something inappropriate from there, I will deal with it appropriately.

That's not the question though, the question is if that is just.

Of course it's not.

Are you suggesting the officer asked Bland out of the vehicle to see her ass?

The argument has fallen down (about 7 pages ago) and now you are resorting to alternate scenarios to... prove what? Is there potential for police to abuse their power? I'll say 'yes'. Have police abused their power? I'll say 'yes'. Did this officer abuse his when dealing with Bland? I'll say 'no'.

No I am not suggesting that was his motivation, I have maintained his motivation was to exercize authority after she sassed him. I had to present another example that might hit home harder because you (plural) either don't agree with that, or don't care.

That you have admitted that the law provides easy opportunity for police to abuse their power is what I have been driving for. That we disagree on this case is less important to me than the broader implications of laws that give ample opportunity for abuse and scant opportunity for redress.

rgambs

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Yes, the law is not always right.

When it doesn't suit you, eh?

Is this argument presentable for everyone that has an issue with the way the law works?

Are you suggesting there are not, and have never been immoral and unfair laws? Or are you just attacking for arguments sake?

In the time I have spent on the MT (since '09)... on no occasion has the argument you presented ever been accepted (outside of referring to things such as Sharia Law).

I've been very outspoken towards facets of the law I disagree with in different contexts, however I accept the application of the law as it is written and practiced. It is what it is.

You're trying to demonize this officer as he performed his duties within the boundaries afforded to him. If you wanted to spend your time criticizing those boundaries... then fair enough, but you're spending your energies attacking him when he... get this... has done nothing wrong- whether you care to admit it or not.

Have you read your exchanges with Last 12? Your last few retorts sound like, "I know you are but what am I." Come on, man.

I'm confused, are you saying that no one has ever accepted the argument that some laws are unjust?
There are entire threads devoted to the just or unjust nature of laws...marijuana prohibition, same-sex marriage, gun control, death ppenalty, etc.

So you are comparing a cop being able to ask somebody to get out of a car to weed laws, gun control, and the death penalty? A bit dramatic, no?

It's an argument of logic not emotion.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

dignin said:

The moral of this story is to never question authority, do as you're told. Comply citizen.....or I can arrest you and make your life a living hell.

Some say, "why sir? I am within my rights"
Some say, "yes sir massa sir!"

And I'm the silly one...

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Yes, the law is not always right.

When it doesn't suit you, eh?

Is this argument presentable for everyone that has an issue with the way the law works?

Do you think a police officer should be legally justified asking your wife to exit her vehicle so he can ogle her?
According to Last, that would be within the confines of the law.

It's not according to me. It's according to the law.

I've heard you use this example a couple of times in this thread and I don't understand why you're so worried about cops ogling your wife.

That's a deflection, I didn't say it was something I worried about.
Are you saying that is fine by you? You have avoided the scenario as many times as I have posited it.

I'm saying that if a cop asked my wife to get out of the car, she obligated to by law. If he did something inappropriate from there, I will deal with it appropriately.

That's not the question though, the question is if that is just.

Of course it's not.

Are you suggesting the officer asked Bland out of the vehicle to see her ass?

The argument has fallen down (about 7 pages ago) and now you are resorting to alternate scenarios to... prove what? Is there potential for police to abuse their power? I'll say 'yes'. Have police abused their power? I'll say 'yes'. Did this officer abuse his when dealing with Bland? I'll say 'no'.

No I am not suggesting that was his motivation, I have maintained his motivation was to exercize authority after she sassed him. I had to present another example that might hit home harder because you (plural) either don't agree with that, or don't care.

That you have admitted that the law provides easy opportunity for police to abuse their power is what I have been driving for. That we disagree on this case is less important to me than the broader implications of laws that give ample opportunity for abuse and scant opportunity for redress.

So within this context... are you suggesting that the officer should not have looked to probe a bit and ascertain whether this woman was in a mental state to be behind the wheel? I presented the following in an earlier post that was not addressed:

This cop had every right to ascertain exactly what had this woman so anxious. She had just committed a traffic violation and now was confrontational and extremely agitated.

We'd have a different headline if the woman was high and minutes after being pulled over plowed into a young mother and her newborn- killing them both.

His line of questioning seemed to suggest he might have been probing a bit to determine whether or not Bland was in the right state of mind to be behind the wheel.


Do you think if an officer pulls over a driver for an illegal lane change and then upon questioning finds the driver highly agitated and somewhat brash... there might be grounds to question a little deeper? And if upon selecting that course of action... the woman becomes defiant... what do you think the officer should do?

Last-12-Exit

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Yes, the law is not always right.

When it doesn't suit you, eh?

Is this argument presentable for everyone that has an issue with the way the law works?

Are you suggesting there are not, and have never been immoral and unfair laws? Or are you just attacking for arguments sake?

In the time I have spent on the MT (since '09)... on no occasion has the argument you presented ever been accepted (outside of referring to things such as Sharia Law).

I've been very outspoken towards facets of the law I disagree with in different contexts, however I accept the application of the law as it is written and practiced. It is what it is.

You're trying to demonize this officer as he performed his duties within the boundaries afforded to him. If you wanted to spend your time criticizing those boundaries... then fair enough, but you're spending your energies attacking him when he... get this... has done nothing wrong- whether you care to admit it or not.

Have you read your exchanges with Last 12? Your last few retorts sound like, "I know you are but what am I." Come on, man.

I'm confused, are you saying that no one has ever accepted the argument that some laws are unjust?
There are entire threads devoted to the just or unjust nature of laws...marijuana prohibition, same-sex marriage, gun control, death ppenalty, etc.

So you are comparing a cop being able to ask somebody to get out of a car to weed laws, gun control, and the death penalty? A bit dramatic, no?

It's an argument of logic not emotion.

Drama is not an emotion. But we're veering.

This cop did not abuse his power at all by asking her to get out of the car. That seems to be your sticking point. It's legal. Why he did is irrelevant. Once people realized that, the chatter about her died down a lot.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Again, RG: do you accept that this officer was within his legal limitations dealing with this woman?

rgambs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Yes, the law is not always right.

When it doesn't suit you, eh?

Is this argument presentable for everyone that has an issue with the way the law works?

Are you suggesting there are not, and have never been immoral and unfair laws? Or are you just attacking for arguments sake?

In the time I have spent on the MT (since '09)... on no occasion has the argument you presented ever been accepted (outside of referring to things such as Sharia Law).

I've been very outspoken towards facets of the law I disagree with in different contexts, however I accept the application of the law as it is written and practiced. It is what it is.

You're trying to demonize this officer as he performed his duties within the boundaries afforded to him. If you wanted to spend your time criticizing those boundaries... then fair enough, but you're spending your energies attacking him when he... get this... has done nothing wrong- whether you care to admit it or not.

Have you read your exchanges with Last 12? Your last few retorts sound like, "I know you are but what am I." Come on, man.

I'm confused, are you saying that no one has ever accepted the argument that some laws are unjust?
There are entire threads devoted to the just or unjust nature of laws...marijuana prohibition, same-sex marriage, gun control, death ppenalty, etc.

Don't be confused- it's not that challenging.

Many have debated the spirit or nature of laws, however to my recollection... none have convicted a police officer as abusive for applying the law in a legal manner.

If you wish to speak of unjust laws or advocate for police officers to have less authority... that is fine; however, this isn't what you have been doing: you have attacked this human being for his work and labelled him abusive because you disagree with the laws he upholds for us.

Did you find any dirt on him for patterns of abuse? Is he the real shitbird you've made him out to be? Is he (as you seem to imply) like most of the other cops- a power tripping, racist, asshole looking to bust some chops?

Point blank: do you accept that this officer was within his legal limitations dealing with this woman?

Yes, and I said so some time ago. Legal limitations and moral limitations are not the same for me. I have been talking about the laws for a good while, is it possible you are getting too upset to see my posts clearly? I have attacked the officer no more vociferously than you have attacked the driver. They were both idiots that day, but only one of them was getting paid and using the law to do so.

And, yes, many have criticized (I never said anything about convicting anyone) officers acting within the confines of the law, such as when they shoot dogs, or perform raids on personal users of drugs. There is also quite a bit of dissent on the application of the law by other authority figures acting within the law, such as judges who release murderers.

If we don't question the use of the law it will certainly be abused. You guys aren't advocating against questioning authority in the broad sense, but you are attacking those who do so pretty strongly.

rgambs

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Yes, the law is not always right.

When it doesn't suit you, eh?

Is this argument presentable for everyone that has an issue with the way the law works?

Are you suggesting there are not, and have never been immoral and unfair laws? Or are you just attacking for arguments sake?

In the time I have spent on the MT (since '09)... on no occasion has the argument you presented ever been accepted (outside of referring to things such as Sharia Law).

I've been very outspoken towards facets of the law I disagree with in different contexts, however I accept the application of the law as it is written and practiced. It is what it is.

You're trying to demonize this officer as he performed his duties within the boundaries afforded to him. If you wanted to spend your time criticizing those boundaries... then fair enough, but you're spending your energies attacking him when he... get this... has done nothing wrong- whether you care to admit it or not.

Have you read your exchanges with Last 12? Your last few retorts sound like, "I know you are but what am I." Come on, man.

I'm confused, are you saying that no one has ever accepted the argument that some laws are unjust?
There are entire threads devoted to the just or unjust nature of laws...marijuana prohibition, same-sex marriage, gun control, death ppenalty, etc.

So you are comparing a cop being able to ask somebody to get out of a car to weed laws, gun control, and the death penalty? A bit dramatic, no?

It's an argument of logic not emotion.

Drama is not an emotion. But we're veering.

This cop did not abuse his power at all by asking her to get out of the car. That seems to be your sticking point. It's legal. Why he did is irrelevant. Once people realized that, the chatter about her died down a lot.

Drama is the presence of heightened emotions.
My question about the ogling was precisely in response to this notion that the "why" is irrelevant. That is inconsistent with our constitutional and moral rights, if the "why" was truly irrelevant there would be no such thing as "probably cause" and profiling wouldn't be controversial.

Just because you don't care if your wife gets ogled, doesn't mean everyone agrees. Would she think that is just? I know mine wouldn't.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Yes, the law is not always right.

When it doesn't suit you, eh?

Is this argument presentable for everyone that has an issue with the way the law works?

Are you suggesting there are not, and have never been immoral and unfair laws? Or are you just attacking for arguments sake?

In the time I have spent on the MT (since '09)... on no occasion has the argument you presented ever been accepted (outside of referring to things such as Sharia Law).

I've been very outspoken towards facets of the law I disagree with in different contexts, however I accept the application of the law as it is written and practiced. It is what it is.

You're trying to demonize this officer as he performed his duties within the boundaries afforded to him. If you wanted to spend your time criticizing those boundaries... then fair enough, but you're spending your energies attacking him when he... get this... has done nothing wrong- whether you care to admit it or not.

Have you read your exchanges with Last 12? Your last few retorts sound like, "I know you are but what am I." Come on, man.

I'm confused, are you saying that no one has ever accepted the argument that some laws are unjust?
There are entire threads devoted to the just or unjust nature of laws...marijuana prohibition, same-sex marriage, gun control, death ppenalty, etc.

Don't be confused- it's not that challenging.

Many have debated the spirit or nature of laws, however to my recollection... none have convicted a police officer as abusive for applying the law in a legal manner.

If you wish to speak of unjust laws or advocate for police officers to have less authority... that is fine; however, this isn't what you have been doing: you have attacked this human being for his work and labelled him abusive because you disagree with the laws he upholds for us.

Did you find any dirt on him for patterns of abuse? Is he the real shitbird you've made him out to be? Is he (as you seem to imply) like most of the other cops- a power tripping, racist, asshole looking to bust some chops?

Point blank: do you accept that this officer was within his legal limitations dealing with this woman?

Yes, and I said so some time ago. Legal limitations and moral limitations are not the same for me. I have been talking about the laws for a good while, is it possible you are getting too upset to see my posts clearly? I have attacked the officer no more vociferously than you have attacked the driver. They were both idiots that day, but only one of them was getting paid and using the law to do so.

And, yes, many have criticized (I never said anything about convicting anyone) officers acting within the confines of the law, such as when they shoot dogs, or perform raids on personal users of drugs. There is also quite a bit of dissent on the application of the law by other authority figures acting within the law, such as judges who release murderers.

If we don't question the use of the law it will certainly be abused. You guys aren't advocating against questioning authority in the broad sense, but you are attacking those who do so pretty strongly.

Okay.

You accept that the officer acted appropriately, but immediately attack him on moral grounds. Then you proceed to suggest Bland was less of an idiot than the cop (They were both idiots that day, but only one of them was getting paid and using the law to do so).

As I said earlier, if it is proven there was an abuse of power... I'd fall in line and demand accountability. But... as you have just stated... there's been no abuse here.

If you want to gain traction for your stance... there are other threads where your notion is more relevant.

Last-12-Exit

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Yes, the law is not always right.

When it doesn't suit you, eh?

Is this argument presentable for everyone that has an issue with the way the law works?

Are you suggesting there are not, and have never been immoral and unfair laws? Or are you just attacking for arguments sake?

In the time I have spent on the MT (since '09)... on no occasion has the argument you presented ever been accepted (outside of referring to things such as Sharia Law).

I've been very outspoken towards facets of the law I disagree with in different contexts, however I accept the application of the law as it is written and practiced. It is what it is.

You're trying to demonize this officer as he performed his duties within the boundaries afforded to him. If you wanted to spend your time criticizing those boundaries... then fair enough, but you're spending your energies attacking him when he... get this... has done nothing wrong- whether you care to admit it or not.

Have you read your exchanges with Last 12? Your last few retorts sound like, "I know you are but what am I." Come on, man.

I'm confused, are you saying that no one has ever accepted the argument that some laws are unjust?
There are entire threads devoted to the just or unjust nature of laws...marijuana prohibition, same-sex marriage, gun control, death ppenalty, etc.

So you are comparing a cop being able to ask somebody to get out of a car to weed laws, gun control, and the death penalty? A bit dramatic, no?

It's an argument of logic not emotion.

Drama is not an emotion. But we're veering.

This cop did not abuse his power at all by asking her to get out of the car. That seems to be your sticking point. It's legal. Why he did is irrelevant. Once people realized that, the chatter about her died down a lot.

My question about the ogling was precisely in response to this notion that the "why" is irrelevant. That is inconsistent with our constitutional and moral rights, if the "why" was truly irrelevant there would be no such thing as "probably cause" and profiling wouldn't be controversial.

Just because you don't care if your wife gets ogled, doesn't mean everyone agrees. Would she think that is just? I know mine wouldn't.

I didn't say I didn't care. I said I don't have a say in whether she can get out when asked by a cop. If something inappropriate happens from there, I will deal with it appropriately (or not so appropriately). Again, you're putting words in my mouth.

How is it against your constitutional rights to get out of your car?

rgambs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

dignin said:

The moral of this story is to never question authority, do as you're told. Comply citizen.....or I can arrest you and make your life a living hell.

Some say, "why sir? I am within my rights"
Some say, "yes sir massa sir!"

And I'm the silly one...

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Yes, the law is not always right.

When it doesn't suit you, eh?

Is this argument presentable for everyone that has an issue with the way the law works?

Do you think a police officer should be legally justified asking your wife to exit her vehicle so he can ogle her?
According to Last, that would be within the confines of the law.

It's not according to me. It's according to the law.

I've heard you use this example a couple of times in this thread and I don't understand why you're so worried about cops ogling your wife.

That's a deflection, I didn't say it was something I worried about.
Are you saying that is fine by you? You have avoided the scenario as many times as I have posited it.

I'm saying that if a cop asked my wife to get out of the car, she obligated to by law. If he did something inappropriate from there, I will deal with it appropriately.

That's not the question though, the question is if that is just.

Of course it's not.

Are you suggesting the officer asked Bland out of the vehicle to see her ass?

The argument has fallen down (about 7 pages ago) and now you are resorting to alternate scenarios to... prove what? Is there potential for police to abuse their power? I'll say 'yes'. Have police abused their power? I'll say 'yes'. Did this officer abuse his when dealing with Bland? I'll say 'no'.

No I am not suggesting that was his motivation, I have maintained his motivation was to exercize authority after she sassed him. I had to present another example that might hit home harder because you (plural) either don't agree with that, or don't care.

That you have admitted that the law provides easy opportunity for police to abuse their power is what I have been driving for. That we disagree on this case is less important to me than the broader implications of laws that give ample opportunity for abuse and scant opportunity for redress.

So within this context... are you suggesting that the officer should not have looked to probe a bit and ascertain whether this woman was in a mental state to be behind the wheel? I presented the following in an earlier post that was not addressed:

This cop had every right to ascertain exactly what had this woman so anxious. She had just committed a traffic violation and now was confrontational and extremely agitated.

We'd have a different headline if the woman was high and minutes after being pulled over plowed into a young mother and her newborn- killing them both.

His line of questioning seemed to suggest he might have been probing a bit to determine whether or not Bland was in the right state of mind to be behind the wheel.


Do you think if an officer pulls over a driver for an illegal lane change and then upon questioning finds the driver highly agitated and somewhat brash... there might be grounds to question a little deeper? And if upon selecting that course of action... the woman becomes defiant... what do you think the officer should do?

I understand what you are saying, I just disagree with it's application to this case. I haven't seen any evidence that he thought she was under the influence or ddangerous, both situations that he would need to address ffurther. While she was agitated and argumentative, she was also rational and not erratic.
I think the officer played as much of a role in escalating the situation as she did, and he could easily have given her a ticket and told her she should be more respectful.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Yes, the law is not always right.

When it doesn't suit you, eh?

Is this argument presentable for everyone that has an issue with the way the law works?

Are you suggesting there are not, and have never been immoral and unfair laws? Or are you just attacking for arguments sake?

In the time I have spent on the MT (since '09)... on no occasion has the argument you presented ever been accepted (outside of referring to things such as Sharia Law).

I've been very outspoken towards facets of the law I disagree with in different contexts, however I accept the application of the law as it is written and practiced. It is what it is.

You're trying to demonize this officer as he performed his duties within the boundaries afforded to him. If you wanted to spend your time criticizing those boundaries... then fair enough, but you're spending your energies attacking him when he... get this... has done nothing wrong- whether you care to admit it or not.

Have you read your exchanges with Last 12? Your last few retorts sound like, "I know you are but what am I." Come on, man.

I'm confused, are you saying that no one has ever accepted the argument that some laws are unjust?
There are entire threads devoted to the just or unjust nature of laws...marijuana prohibition, same-sex marriage, gun control, death ppenalty, etc.

So you are comparing a cop being able to ask somebody to get out of a car to weed laws, gun control, and the death penalty? A bit dramatic, no?

It's an argument of logic not emotion.

Drama is not an emotion. But we're veering.

This cop did not abuse his power at all by asking her to get out of the car. That seems to be your sticking point. It's legal. Why he did is irrelevant. Once people realized that, the chatter about her died down a lot.

My question about the ogling was precisely in response to this notion that the "why" is irrelevant. That is inconsistent with our constitutional and moral rights, if the "why" was truly irrelevant there would be no such thing as "probably cause" and profiling wouldn't be controversial.

Just because you don't care if your wife gets ogled, doesn't mean everyone agrees. Would she think that is just? I know mine wouldn't.

Just pointing out this tactic, which you have admonished others (well... me anyways) for at different times.

For the record, I don't care how you attempt to illustrate your points; however, in the event I did take exception to such tactics... I'd be careful not to employ them myself.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

dignin said:

The moral of this story is to never question authority, do as you're told. Comply citizen.....or I can arrest you and make your life a living hell.

Some say, "why sir? I am within my rights"
Some say, "yes sir massa sir!"

And I'm the silly one...

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Yes, the law is not always right.

When it doesn't suit you, eh?

Is this argument presentable for everyone that has an issue with the way the law works?

Do you think a police officer should be legally justified asking your wife to exit her vehicle so he can ogle her?
According to Last, that would be within the confines of the law.

It's not according to me. It's according to the law.

I've heard you use this example a couple of times in this thread and I don't understand why you're so worried about cops ogling your wife.

That's a deflection, I didn't say it was something I worried about.
Are you saying that is fine by you? You have avoided the scenario as many times as I have posited it.

I'm saying that if a cop asked my wife to get out of the car, she obligated to by law. If he did something inappropriate from there, I will deal with it appropriately.

That's not the question though, the question is if that is just.

Of course it's not.

Are you suggesting the officer asked Bland out of the vehicle to see her ass?

The argument has fallen down (about 7 pages ago) and now you are resorting to alternate scenarios to... prove what? Is there potential for police to abuse their power? I'll say 'yes'. Have police abused their power? I'll say 'yes'. Did this officer abuse his when dealing with Bland? I'll say 'no'.

No I am not suggesting that was his motivation, I have maintained his motivation was to exercize authority after she sassed him. I had to present another example that might hit home harder because you (plural) either don't agree with that, or don't care.

That you have admitted that the law provides easy opportunity for police to abuse their power is what I have been driving for. That we disagree on this case is less important to me than the broader implications of laws that give ample opportunity for abuse and scant opportunity for redress.

So within this context... are you suggesting that the officer should not have looked to probe a bit and ascertain whether this woman was in a mental state to be behind the wheel? I presented the following in an earlier post that was not addressed:

This cop had every right to ascertain exactly what had this woman so anxious. She had just committed a traffic violation and now was confrontational and extremely agitated.

We'd have a different headline if the woman was high and minutes after being pulled over plowed into a young mother and her newborn- killing them both.

His line of questioning seemed to suggest he might have been probing a bit to determine whether or not Bland was in the right state of mind to be behind the wheel.


Do you think if an officer pulls over a driver for an illegal lane change and then upon questioning finds the driver highly agitated and somewhat brash... there might be grounds to question a little deeper? And if upon selecting that course of action... the woman becomes defiant... what do you think the officer should do?

I understand what you are saying, I just disagree with it's application to this case. I haven't seen any evidence that he thought she was under the influence or ddangerous, both situations that he would need to address ffurther. While she was agitated and argumentative, she was also rational and not erratic.
I think the officer played as much of a role in escalating the situation as she did, and he could easily have given her a ticket and told her she should be more respectful.

But you aren't trained and you weren't there. We saw video footage, but that's hardly the best vantage point for trying to establish the state of mind of someone- especially when we cannot see facial expressions and body language.

rgambs

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Yes, the law is not always right.

When it doesn't suit you, eh?

Is this argument presentable for everyone that has an issue with the way the law works?

Are you suggesting there are not, and have never been immoral and unfair laws? Or are you just attacking for arguments sake?

In the time I have spent on the MT (since '09)... on no occasion has the argument you presented ever been accepted (outside of referring to things such as Sharia Law).

I've been very outspoken towards facets of the law I disagree with in different contexts, however I accept the application of the law as it is written and practiced. It is what it is.

You're trying to demonize this officer as he performed his duties within the boundaries afforded to him. If you wanted to spend your time criticizing those boundaries... then fair enough, but you're spending your energies attacking him when he... get this... has done nothing wrong- whether you care to admit it or not.

Have you read your exchanges with Last 12? Your last few retorts sound like, "I know you are but what am I." Come on, man.

I'm confused, are you saying that no one has ever accepted the argument that some laws are unjust?
There are entire threads devoted to the just or unjust nature of laws...marijuana prohibition, same-sex marriage, gun control, death ppenalty, etc.

So you are comparing a cop being able to ask somebody to get out of a car to weed laws, gun control, and the death penalty? A bit dramatic, no?

It's an argument of logic not emotion.

Drama is not an emotion. But we're veering.

This cop did not abuse his power at all by asking her to get out of the car. That seems to be your sticking point. It's legal. Why he did is irrelevant. Once people realized that, the chatter about her died down a lot.

My question about the ogling was precisely in response to this notion that the "why" is irrelevant. That is inconsistent with our constitutional and moral rights, if the "why" was truly irrelevant there would be no such thing as "probably cause" and profiling wouldn't be controversial.

Just because you don't care if your wife gets ogled, doesn't mean everyone agrees. Would she think that is just? I know mine wouldn't.

I didn't say I didn't care. I said I don't have a say in whether she can get out when asked by a cop. If something inappropriate happens from there, I will deal with it appropriately (or not so appropriately). Again, you're putting words in my mouth.

How is it against your constitutional rights to get out of your car?

You said it was just, I thought you understood that by just I meant morally acceptable and personally palatable, I should have been more clear I guess.
I have a constitutional right to avoid undue search and seizure. I feel that (with the exception of safety issues) being removed from my vehicle without probable cause is a violation of that right. The courts have ruled otherwise.

rgambs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Yes, the law is not always right.

When it doesn't suit you, eh?

Is this argument presentable for everyone that has an issue with the way the law works?

Are you suggesting there are not, and have never been immoral and unfair laws? Or are you just attacking for arguments sake?

In the time I have spent on the MT (since '09)... on no occasion has the argument you presented ever been accepted (outside of referring to things such as Sharia Law).

I've been very outspoken towards facets of the law I disagree with in different contexts, however I accept the application of the law as it is written and practiced. It is what it is.

You're trying to demonize this officer as he performed his duties within the boundaries afforded to him. If you wanted to spend your time criticizing those boundaries... then fair enough, but you're spending your energies attacking him when he... get this... has done nothing wrong- whether you care to admit it or not.

Have you read your exchanges with Last 12? Your last few retorts sound like, "I know you are but what am I." Come on, man.

I'm confused, are you saying that no one has ever accepted the argument that some laws are unjust?
There are entire threads devoted to the just or unjust nature of laws...marijuana prohibition, same-sex marriage, gun control, death ppenalty, etc.

So you are comparing a cop being able to ask somebody to get out of a car to weed laws, gun control, and the death penalty? A bit dramatic, no?

It's an argument of logic not emotion.

Drama is not an emotion. But we're veering.

This cop did not abuse his power at all by asking her to get out of the car. That seems to be your sticking point. It's legal. Why he did is irrelevant. Once people realized that, the chatter about her died down a lot.

My question about the ogling was precisely in response to this notion that the "why" is irrelevant. That is inconsistent with our constitutional and moral rights, if the "why" was truly irrelevant there would be no such thing as "probably cause" and profiling wouldn't be controversial.

Just because you don't care if your wife gets ogled, doesn't mean everyone agrees. Would she think that is just? I know mine wouldn't.

Just pointing out this tactic, which you have admonished others (well... me anyways) for at different times.

For the record, I don't care how you attempt to illustrate your points; however, in the event I did take exception to such tactics... I'd be careful not to employ them myself.

I genuinely thought he was accepting of that issue from his capitalized assertion that it was just, but I realize we were on different pages about what "just" means.

rgambs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

dignin said:

The moral of this story is to never question authority, do as you're told. Comply citizen.....or I can arrest you and make your life a living hell.

Some say, "why sir? I am within my rights"
Some say, "yes sir massa sir!"

And I'm the silly one...

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Yes, the law is not always right.

When it doesn't suit you, eh?

Is this argument presentable for everyone that has an issue with the way the law works?

Do you think a police officer should be legally justified asking your wife to exit her vehicle so he can ogle her?
According to Last, that would be within the confines of the law.

It's not according to me. It's according to the law.

I've heard you use this example a couple of times in this thread and I don't understand why you're so worried about cops ogling your wife.

That's a deflection, I didn't say it was something I worried about.
Are you saying that is fine by you? You have avoided the scenario as many times as I have posited it.

I'm saying that if a cop asked my wife to get out of the car, she obligated to by law. If he did something inappropriate from there, I will deal with it appropriately.

That's not the question though, the question is if that is just.

Of course it's not.

Are you suggesting the officer asked Bland out of the vehicle to see her ass?

The argument has fallen down (about 7 pages ago) and now you are resorting to alternate scenarios to... prove what? Is there potential for police to abuse their power? I'll say 'yes'. Have police abused their power? I'll say 'yes'. Did this officer abuse his when dealing with Bland? I'll say 'no'.

No I am not suggesting that was his motivation, I have maintained his motivation was to exercize authority after she sassed him. I had to present another example that might hit home harder because you (plural) either don't agree with that, or don't care.

That you have admitted that the law provides easy opportunity for police to abuse their power is what I have been driving for. That we disagree on this case is less important to me than the broader implications of laws that give ample opportunity for abuse and scant opportunity for redress.

So within this context... are you suggesting that the officer should not have looked to probe a bit and ascertain whether this woman was in a mental state to be behind the wheel? I presented the following in an earlier post that was not addressed:

This cop had every right to ascertain exactly what had this woman so anxious. She had just committed a traffic violation and now was confrontational and extremely agitated.

We'd have a different headline if the woman was high and minutes after being pulled over plowed into a young mother and her newborn- killing them both.

His line of questioning seemed to suggest he might have been probing a bit to determine whether or not Bland was in the right state of mind to be behind the wheel.


Do you think if an officer pulls over a driver for an illegal lane change and then upon questioning finds the driver highly agitated and somewhat brash... there might be grounds to question a little deeper? And if upon selecting that course of action... the woman becomes defiant... what do you think the officer should do?

I understand what you are saying, I just disagree with it's application to this case. I haven't seen any evidence that he thought she was under the influence or ddangerous, both situations that he would need to address ffurther. While she was agitated and argumentative, she was also rational and not erratic.
I think the officer played as much of a role in escalating the situation as she did, and he could easily have given her a ticket and told her she should be more respectful.

But you aren't trained and you weren't there. We saw video footage, but that's hardly the best vantage point for trying to establish the state of mind of someone- especially when we cannot see facial expressions and body language.

Yeah, I understand those arguments, and they are valid, but the video rolls for a long time, and in his summation I don't recall him noting any concerns about her being intoxicated or a danger to himself or the public.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

dignin said:

The moral of this story is to never question authority, do as you're told. Comply citizen.....or I can arrest you and make your life a living hell.

Some say, "why sir? I am within my rights"
Some say, "yes sir massa sir!"

And I'm the silly one...

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Yes, the law is not always right.

When it doesn't suit you, eh?

Is this argument presentable for everyone that has an issue with the way the law works?

Do you think a police officer should be legally justified asking your wife to exit her vehicle so he can ogle her?
According to Last, that would be within the confines of the law.

It's not according to me. It's according to the law.

I've heard you use this example a couple of times in this thread and I don't understand why you're so worried about cops ogling your wife.

That's a deflection, I didn't say it was something I worried about.
Are you saying that is fine by you? You have avoided the scenario as many times as I have posited it.

I'm saying that if a cop asked my wife to get out of the car, she obligated to by law. If he did something inappropriate from there, I will deal with it appropriately.

That's not the question though, the question is if that is just.

Of course it's not.

Are you suggesting the officer asked Bland out of the vehicle to see her ass?

The argument has fallen down (about 7 pages ago) and now you are resorting to alternate scenarios to... prove what? Is there potential for police to abuse their power? I'll say 'yes'. Have police abused their power? I'll say 'yes'. Did this officer abuse his when dealing with Bland? I'll say 'no'.

No I am not suggesting that was his motivation, I have maintained his motivation was to exercize authority after she sassed him. I had to present another example that might hit home harder because you (plural) either don't agree with that, or don't care.

That you have admitted that the law provides easy opportunity for police to abuse their power is what I have been driving for. That we disagree on this case is less important to me than the broader implications of laws that give ample opportunity for abuse and scant opportunity for redress.

So within this context... are you suggesting that the officer should not have looked to probe a bit and ascertain whether this woman was in a mental state to be behind the wheel? I presented the following in an earlier post that was not addressed:

This cop had every right to ascertain exactly what had this woman so anxious. She had just committed a traffic violation and now was confrontational and extremely agitated.

We'd have a different headline if the woman was high and minutes after being pulled over plowed into a young mother and her newborn- killing them both.

His line of questioning seemed to suggest he might have been probing a bit to determine whether or not Bland was in the right state of mind to be behind the wheel.


Do you think if an officer pulls over a driver for an illegal lane change and then upon questioning finds the driver highly agitated and somewhat brash... there might be grounds to question a little deeper? And if upon selecting that course of action... the woman becomes defiant... what do you think the officer should do?

I understand what you are saying, I just disagree with it's application to this case. I haven't seen any evidence that he thought she was under the influence or ddangerous, both situations that he would need to address ffurther. While she was agitated and argumentative, she was also rational and not erratic.
I think the officer played as much of a role in escalating the situation as she did, and he could easily have given her a ticket and told her she should be more respectful.

But you aren't trained and you weren't there. We saw video footage, but that's hardly the best vantage point for trying to establish the state of mind of someone- especially when we cannot see facial expressions and body language.

Yeah, I understand those arguments, and they are valid, but the video rolls for a long time, and in his summation I don't recall him noting any concerns about her being intoxicated or a danger to himself or the public.

Danger to herself is one other concern, which, as we know now... was legitimate.

rgambs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

dignin said:

The moral of this story is to never question authority, do as you're told. Comply citizen.....or I can arrest you and make your life a living hell.

Some say, "why sir? I am within my rights"
Some say, "yes sir massa sir!"

And I'm the silly one...

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Yes, the law is not always right.

When it doesn't suit you, eh?

Is this argument presentable for everyone that has an issue with the way the law works?

Do you think a police officer should be legally justified asking your wife to exit her vehicle so he can ogle her?
According to Last, that would be within the confines of the law.

It's not according to me. It's according to the law.

I've heard you use this example a couple of times in this thread and I don't understand why you're so worried about cops ogling your wife.

That's a deflection, I didn't say it was something I worried about.
Are you saying that is fine by you? You have avoided the scenario as many times as I have posited it.

I'm saying that if a cop asked my wife to get out of the car, she obligated to by law. If he did something inappropriate from there, I will deal with it appropriately.

That's not the question though, the question is if that is just.

Of course it's not.

Are you suggesting the officer asked Bland out of the vehicle to see her ass?

The argument has fallen down (about 7 pages ago) and now you are resorting to alternate scenarios to... prove what? Is there potential for police to abuse their power? I'll say 'yes'. Have police abused their power? I'll say 'yes'. Did this officer abuse his when dealing with Bland? I'll say 'no'.

No I am not suggesting that was his motivation, I have maintained his motivation was to exercize authority after she sassed him. I had to present another example that might hit home harder because you (plural) either don't agree with that, or don't care.

That you have admitted that the law provides easy opportunity for police to abuse their power is what I have been driving for. That we disagree on this case is less important to me than the broader implications of laws that give ample opportunity for abuse and scant opportunity for redress.

So within this context... are you suggesting that the officer should not have looked to probe a bit and ascertain whether this woman was in a mental state to be behind the wheel? I presented the following in an earlier post that was not addressed:

This cop had every right to ascertain exactly what had this woman so anxious. She had just committed a traffic violation and now was confrontational and extremely agitated.

We'd have a different headline if the woman was high and minutes after being pulled over plowed into a young mother and her newborn- killing them both.

His line of questioning seemed to suggest he might have been probing a bit to determine whether or not Bland was in the right state of mind to be behind the wheel.


Do you think if an officer pulls over a driver for an illegal lane change and then upon questioning finds the driver highly agitated and somewhat brash... there might be grounds to question a little deeper? And if upon selecting that course of action... the woman becomes defiant... what do you think the officer should do?

I understand what you are saying, I just disagree with it's application to this case. I haven't seen any evidence that he thought she was under the influence or ddangerous, both situations that he would need to address ffurther. While she was agitated and argumentative, she was also rational and not erratic.
I think the officer played as much of a role in escalating the situation as she did, and he could easily have given her a ticket and told her she should be more respectful.

But you aren't trained and you weren't there. We saw video footage, but that's hardly the best vantage point for trying to establish the state of mind of someone- especially when we cannot see facial expressions and body language.

Yeah, I understand those arguments, and they are valid, but the video rolls for a long time, and in his summation I don't recall him noting any concerns about her being intoxicated or a danger to himself or the public.

Danger to herself is one other concern, which, as we know now... was legitimate.

True, but I didn't see any evidence that this concern was in his mind. That is by no means definitive, but neither would a statement That it was a concern be definitive after the fact.

rgambs

Just passed 3000 posts.
Woot!

rr165892

Gambs,that's something we can all agree is a good thing.A drink in the lounge this evening on me,30 and L12.