Or by slamming her head on the ground during a traffic stop (for failure to use a turn signal while changing lanes, and not extinguishing a cigarette in her own car - off to jail lady)
Oh crap, did I just post that in response to Smapti’s rampant bull shit? Sorry.
You mean the motion-activated camera? The one that shuts off by design when nobody is moving through the area? That one?
Or did you miss that part of the story, you shit-faced baboon?
As they did the shooting of Michael Brown, whereafter they determined that no had occurred.
If she hadn’t been blowing smoke at the cop and started kicking him while being handcuffed, she’d never have ended up in a situation where she decided strangling herself with a grocery bag was the only way out.
Moral of the story, once again; just obey the fucking law.
In all seriousness, if there was a law that said you had to fuck your kids once a month, would you do it?
“Daddddddy, noooooo!”
“STOP Resisting!”
Did you see the video? Her car might as well have been up on blocks. It was moving mere inches. A six year old in a kiddie car going in circles at a county fair had about as much control.
Even if you never said the exact words, “Cops have a right to kill anyone with impunity”, your posts in this thread clearly indicate that is your opinion.
It was moving. That made it a deadly weapon that was being used to attempt to attack the police.
I do not have or want children.
That doesn’t answer the question. Imagine you’ve got a kid. The law says you have to fuck him once a month. Would you do it? If not, why not?
I cannot imagine myself as having a kid, therefore I cannot answer the question.
Is there a reason folks don’t make a pact not to respond to Smapti and a few other folks? Just curious. You know that’d likely drive him/her bat shit. As it stands, I think (s)he’s been living every troll’s daily wet dream. (It’d be one thing if there were legitimate differences of opinion involving good faith assessment of facts and information, and actual ignorance being fought.)
Okay. Fine. I have a kid. If the law says I should fuck him once a month, should I obey that law? If not, why not? It is, after all, the law.
There is no law that I’m aware of that requires one to extinguish a cigarette on one’s own property if ordered.
Also, as you know, getting her head slammed against the ground could have caused a mild concussion, which untreated during a stressful confinement could lead to unusual behavior from Miss Bland, such as a suicide attempt.
But, Smapti, what I’m most interested in here is your opinion on the following: has there ever been a police killing or assault that you did think was unjustified?
Troll or not, he’s just too damn entertaining to ignore 
Not quite. There simply is no footage of that time period. That’s rather different from four hours of footage showing nothing at all.
Or the one whose footage can be deleted with the push of a button. That one, yes.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. Stop digging !
You can either obey the law, or suffer the consequences of breaking it. You have not established what the penalty is for violating this law or how it is enforced, so I cannot advise you as to what course of action would be better for you.
There is no footage of that time period because nothing happened which could have been shown. That’s what “motion-activated” means.
Also, the relevant time period was 90 minutes, not “four hours”.
And what evidence do you have that the jail’s camera footage can be “deleted with the push of a button”, or that such a thing happened? What motive did the jailers have to shut off the camera, enter the cell, and hang the woman with a grocery bag in such a way that she suffered no defensive injuries or showed any indication of a struggle? In what way is any of this more credible than asserting that the World Trade Center was secretly stuffed full of explosives?
The penalty is 25 years hard labour. There is a small, but statistically significant, risk of dying in the labour camp.
But surely, the question isn’t what’s better for me, the question is what’s the moral thing to do in the abstract? Is it more moral to obey this particular law or disobey it?
Neither, because there is no such thing as objective morality.
I’ve tried to stop (and failed multiple times). But Smapti is so weird that it’s hard to resist responding, at least some of the time. He has opinions, but he’s made the decisions that his opinions are of virtually no importance compared to his supreme philosophy, which is obey. Authority must always be obeyed, no matter what. It doesn’t matter if the law told him he must fuck a little kid (to borrow JVDaly’s hypothetical), even if he didn’t want to fuck that little kid, he would suck it up and obey. I think it’s due to some trauma – something broke part of his mind, and without that capacity that most humans have to determine whether they think something is right or wrong aside from what the law says, he has decided that he must delegate all such decisions to the law and authority. This compulsion is so strong that it even overrides his desire to be factually correct – hence his very frequent false statements (often very obviously made with absolutely no actual search for the facts) that just so happen to give the benefit to authority. I think it’s possible that he continuously adapts the “facts” of any situation such that they will always side with authority – so no matter what actually happened, Smapti will find a way to tell the story such that the authority figures were in the right.
It’s very sad, but also very interesting. It’s a damn good thing he’s decided not to have children.