Where’s the controversy? Are you really going to claim that she wasn’t refusing to do what she was told to do?
I know you’re a complete idiot and a fascist. All I know about the Fredster is that he wasn’t any good at selling drugs, as evidenced by his numerous convictions on those grounds.
So far, the balance of day-to-day facts swings his way. I ain’t give a shit my neighbour grows, uses, sells or shoves drugs up their urethra. I **would *mind living around a guy who wouldn’t bat an eye, much less do a blessed thing, if the police stomped on me for no reason whatsoever, and would a priori *vouch for them in that event. I would mind a whole fucking lot.
Or, to put it more succinctly, “Is this a trick question ?”
If what they did was legal, the law is wrong.
It’s not really clear to me what she was being told to do. From the story:
Interpret that for me, if you wouldn’t mind.
It seems to me that, if my car is being held, but i’ve been told that i’m allowed to leave, then i have no obligation to get back into my car. In fact, the only way i can leave in these circumstances is precisely not to get back in my car, because the agent has told me that my car is being held.
She can walk away, or wait in her car. Not stand there and argue with them, or claim she has the right to drive away, or anything else. She was free to go, the car and its contents were not.
What’s unreasonable about that? The search was legitimate, and she wasn’t detained until after she tried to stop the police searching the vehicle.
But if she, as an individual, is not being detained, then she also has no obligation to leave.
She’s not allowed to physically impede their investigation, but if she stays out of their way and simply stands nearby and argues that they are wrong, that’s not impeding them, especially since all they were doing at the time was waiting for a canine unit.
There is no law against standing on public property and making a claim about your rights.
A state in which sovereignty is vested in the people and exercised on their behalf by an elected government. A government that disfranchises parts of its population based on race is not a perfect democracy, but 100% suffrage has never been considered an essential prerequisite to democracy. Very few Americans were able to vote in 1789, but nobody hesitated calling it a democracy.
High school graduate. I took two semesters of community college but couldn’t continue due to financial issues and having since lost all respect for the industry I was interested in working in.
There are many, including interfering with a police investigation, which is what she was doing. She was preventing them from searching the vehicle.
This is factually incorrect. Almost no-one used the term democracy to describe the United States in the first years of the republic. During the late eighteenth century, the term democracy was generally associated with societies like ancient Greece, where it referred to direct democracy, or the participation of all citizens in the everyday running of the society.
In fact, plenty of people during the debates over the Constitution, and during the early decades of the United States, expressed considerable hostility to the concept of democracy. They called their society a republic. While we in the modern period tend to conflate the definitions of republic and democracy, and use the terms interchangeably, they generally did not.
The United States was, admittedly, more democratic in its suffrage distribution than most other nations of the late eighteenth century, but it wasn’t until the elimination of property qualifications for voting, and the rise of universal white manhood suffrage in the first few decades of the nineteenth century that the term democracy was used with any consistency to refer to the United States.
And even as states in the United States began to broaden the elective franchise, and open up voting to all white men, there were still quite a few people who believed that this experiment in democracy would be a disaster. In New York, for example, they held a constitutional convention in 1821 to consider eliminating property qualifications for voting. One delegate, James Kent, argued:
If all she was doing was talking, then no, she wasn’t.
It’s not clear to me from the story exactly where she was standing in relation to the car, or whether she was physically impeding them from searching it. If she was actually impeding them, i’m happy to concede that she was legally in the wrong, and they had a right to take action against her.
Personally, as someone who lives near the border, i think that the leeway our laws give to the Border Patrol is too great. Their zone of authority within the United States should, in my opinion, be much smaller and more restricted than it currently is.
So - the term democracy was generally associated with ancient Greece, where women, slaves, and those who didn’t own land could not vote?
While the Border Patrol does not technically have a white-card WRT the constitution, they might as well in practical terms. Their coverage is up to 100 miles in from any land or coastal border, which puts something like two-thirds of the nation’s population under their scrutiny.
Actually, as already pointed out it was not referred to as a democracy until the early 20th Century.
Beyond that, your definition of “democracy” would seem to be so broad it could mean almost anything.
The government of East Germany called itself a democracy and it’s official name was “The German Democratic Republic”.
Since Adolph Hitler and the Nazis were democratically elected is you positions that German citizens should have obeyed their orders, commands and laws?
Also, do you think that Apartheid South Africa was a democracy, as the then South African government claimed?
Thanks in advance.
I could be wrong, but I do believe that their was no property requirement for citizenship in Athens.
A democracy is certainly supposed to give the franchise to all citizens. Slaves and women IIRC weren’t citizens in ancient Athens.
What Smapti is doing is going much further. He’s arguing that the 1960 state government of Mississippi was democratically elected even though roughly 40% of all citizens of the state were prohibited from voting because they were black.
I would guess that part of problem must have to do with the fact that most of the constables live in Shadybrook Pointe and commute 30 miles to bust heads in East Central Schwarzgebiet. The situation might play out differently if the force was forced to use locals to do the job – they would learn rather quickly not to shit where they eat.
That is slightly inaccurate. The NSDAP never really had a significant majority of the German vote. After they got their chancellor appointed by hoary von Hindenburg as a compromise, they apparently gained control of the polling apparatus, because the subsequent referendum returned unrealistic percentages in their favor. In terms of being democratical, it was a farce.
…So Athens was a democracy even though it restricted the franchise to a far smaller portion of the populace than Mississippi did, purely on the basis that it didn’t refer to its nonvoting populators as “citizens”?
Smapti has explicitly said the answer is “yes” – in fact, he believes that “I was only following orders” is a valid moral defense against accusations of atrocities.
Smapti believes that good soldiers never question their orders (which is a pretty clear indication that he’s never been in the military and would make an absolutely terrible soldier/sailor/airman/marine).
A good soldier is free to question his orders as long as he follows them. No military can function where following orders is optional.
Female **citizens **had few rights in comparison to male citizens. Unable to vote, own land, or inherit, a woman’s place was in the home and her purpose in life was the rearing of children.
Bolding is mine.
And that is different from “democracy” in ancient Greece somehow where 50%+ of all citizens of the state were prohibited from voting because they were female. Somehow.