Very good, sir.
I’m not. The people who are against authority are the ones trying to redefine “unreasonable” as “any”.
You’re taking a position against Ckngress and the rulings of the federal courts on this matter.
Anarchist! Since you said this, you must be opposed to all of the courts’ authority!
-
I was not aware that Congress or the federal courts had decided that police had no authority to ask someone their name.
-
I was not aware that said order further included an order that all persons must agree with that order.
-
I was not aware that I had to agree with a policy in order to abide by it.
For others, I would elaborate. Since your mind is fucked, I’ll simply tell you to look up Terry stops, you crazy fuck.
What does this have to do with Terry stops? At no point was the inveigler detained; the cop made it quite clear that he didn’t want to detain him, which is why he gave him an opportunity to shut up and walk away (which he wisely did; no doubt you’d still be sitting in your cell shouting about how you have the right to not tell people your name.)
Yeah, I figured there’s no point in a real discussion. It’s hard to imagine sucking the court’s dick, or going down on the Constitution, isn’t it, you crazy, broken fuck?
The only one of those quotes that even remotely says what you are claiming it does is the one by silenus, which if you’d bother to read even the portion of it you’d quoted, had to do with the death of a person in custody. I think most people would agree with the general idea–once you take someone into custody, you become responsible for keeping them alive.
The rest of the quotes don’t say what you claim they say.
I will say this clearly so you can understand me; you are deliberately lying and mischaracterizing other peoples words, you lying sack of shit. You should be banned for trolling.
Let me ask you the question plainly: was that officer doing a good job?
The meanings of those peoples’ words are clear - they believe that police should be expected to die on the job if the alternative is using force to protect themselves. If you can’t understand that, it’s on you.
Yes.
I mean he didn’t even demand a blow job or anything - Smapti’s hopes, dreams and diary entries notwithstanding.
Model officer, right there.
It’s fucking terrifying how many people here equate having a modicum of respect for people who risk their lives to protect them with being raped.
Is the modicum permanent and obligatory, i.e. should we be compelled to have it regardless of what police officers do? Is there any conceivable mechanism or process through which a particular officer (or police in general) can show himself or themselves as unworthy of that modicum?
He was suspended and apologized. Good call.
Yeah, we’re the crazy ones.
Someone once said something like: “Smapti thinks he’s sane, just like we think we’re sane. What if we as batshit insane as Smapti is and we just don’t know it?” Scary thought.
You confuse “modicum of respect” for “groveling in fear”. Common mistake for Englishmen.
C’mon, dude. Nationality based insults? Isn’t there enough about Steophan as an individual poster that you can bad mouth without doing the tribal color flashing?
While I’m sure the English are grateful that you’re so quick to leap to their defense, you should be aware that it’s just a (modified) quote from the movie “Rob Roy”. Even if it wasn’t, I have special dispensation to make English jokes anyway, for the obvious reason.
Doh! Didn’t get the Rob Roy ref. But I’m not rushing to defend the English, I just thought “an idiot’s an idiot anywhere.”
Also, the reason for your dispensation isn’t obvious to me. Should it be? Are you typing with an accent or something?
The guy in the video was very respectful, especially for someone getting his Fourth Amendment protections violated.
There was no reasonable articulable susicion that the guy in the video had committed a crime. The cop was not in the act of investigating a felony. Thus, the cop was not legally permitted to demand anything of the guy in the video, including his identification. And he clearly threatens the guy with jail if he does not comply. Further, I have no idea what would allow a cop to threaten someone with jail for speaking.