You are not required to carry ID when riding a bicycle.
I don’t always carry ID when riding a bike, or walking on the street.
If a police officer asks me for ID, the fact that i do not have it with me is NOT the same as refusing to provide it, your personal fantasies and self-serving arguments notwithstanding.
Like the police violating amendments in that pesky Bill of Rights?
False. As noted in the article, a bicyclist is required to provide ID if stopped for a traffic violation. This man made a conscious decision to place himself in a situation where, if pulled over, he would be breaking the law.
Why on Earth not?
I’d suggest the English Civil War was historically far more important in shattering the idea of royal power, and that beat the American Revolution by over a century.
The liar Smapti should provide quotes for each one of his claims. He won’t, because most of them are false.
You were saying?
I was saying that you’re a liar, for making multiple claims (including that he refused (not failed) to provide ID) that are unsupported or refuted by the arrestee’s account. You said many things about the account, not just this, that are false, liar.
He had an obligation to provide ID. He did not do so. He refused to provide ID. QED.
If that were the case, then you wouldn’t be trying to word-lawyer the difference between “failed” and “refused” in a situation where the end result of either was that he broke the law.
There’s very little point of trying to reason with someone who lies as regularly, as well as expressing abominable opinions like slaves are wrong to disobey their masters, as you do. You said his own account said he resisted arrest, that he “about at the officer” (whatever that means), and that he “continued flailing about and refusing to be handcuffed”. Those are all lies, liar. You lied repeatedly, and it was incredibly easy to check. You have no interest (and perhaps no ability) to tell truth from falsehood.
I’m not the one lying here.
Yes you are, liar (who also cuts off quotes to remove the context). Saying that an officer said “stop resisting” is not the same as him saying he resisted arrest, liar.
You’re incapable of not conflating to the point of utter lies just to support the pro-authority stance in a given instance.
In case you’re a complete idiot as well as a liar and a terrible person, he was saying the officer was lying about his resistance.
The officer told him to stop resisting (which, in case you still refuse to take the victim at his word, the video shows he was doing anyway) and he responded that he couldn’t stop resisting.
He never said he “couldn’t stop resisting”, liar. He said he couldn’t move his legs because they were being held, liar.
And the video doesn’t show this, liar. The video shows him reacting as a person would to being beaten.
Putting aside your incredible dishonesty, cowardice, and immorality (by your posts, at least), I can’t make a final judgment on this incident based on the video and statements. Further evidence may reveal that the arrestee’s account is entirely correct and he was beaten unjustly and unlawfully, or it may reveal that he instigated the violence at some point. But your lies do nothing to sway me on this, and shouldn’t sway anyone. And you should stop lying – it’s entirely possible to make an argument without constantly lying. You lie constantly and repeatedly and hurt your own arguments. If you made honest arguments, then at least the “dishonesty” part of your “lying immoral coward” trinity could be dismissed.
And yet the video shows him moving his legs. I’m not the liar here.
Then he wouldn’t have been kicking and screaming. I’m not the liar here.
I’d have to start lying first.
Yes you are. If you had said “he moved his legs as his legs were beaten”, you wouldn’t have been lying. But you said something else that was a lie.
His actions are entirely consistent with a person being beaten. It’s not possible to hold perfectly still and make no noise while being beaten. So you’re still lying here.
You’ve never stopped, friend to slavers.
Funny how you’ve entirely abandoned your first dishonest claims – that the arrestee’s own account said that he “continued flailing about and refusing to be handcuffed” – to different dishonest claims about the video.
Your earlier lies won’t be excused by new ones, liar.
Have you ever been beaten? Because I can assure you that it is, especially if you want the beating to stop.
I am not a “friend to slavers” and you know that. Stop being dishonest.
It is true that he admitted to resisting arrest and it is true that the video shows him resisting arrest. All the proof is right in front of you and you insist on ignoring it.
I don’t believe you, liar. Even if it’s possible for some, it’s not possible for every human.
Yes you are – you believe that the only morally correct action for a slave is to obey their master. That’s explicitly what you said. That’s friendly to slavers.
These are blatant and obvious lies. Or perhaps you’re just so blinded by your abominable philosophy that you’re only able to see falsehood when the truth goes against your disgusting beliefs about authority.
I’ll take that as a “no, I have no actual experience with this and am just talking out of thin air”.
Being friendly to slavers would mean supporting the legality of slavery. Believing that the law should be obeyed is not the same thing as believing that that law is just or right. You are so convinced that you have the unilateral right to disobey any law you don’t like that you can’t differentiate between those two things.
I’ve been in fights, and been beaten, though not held down and beaten by many. I have spoken to people (who, unlike you, don’t have a history of lying and saying terrible and cowardly things) who have been similarly beaten, and they’ve told me that it’s not always possible to remain silent and still.
In this sense, it is. If you believe that an abominable law should be followed, then you are approving of that law. You are friendly to slavers because you believe that their slaves must obey them, and it’s wrong for slaves to resist or disobey them. No one I’ve ever met or spoken to is more friendly to slavers than you. Perhaps you could be an even closer friend of slavers by advocating for the reinstatement of slavery, but your insistence that slaves must obey their masters makes you slavers’ best friend on this board.
If you believe in law at all, then you are obligated to obey any and all laws that apply to you, regardless of what you think of them. To do otherwise is to assert that any law can be disobeyed by anyone if they don’t want to obey it. You can’t assert that human traffickers don’t have the right to disobey trafficking laws that they feel are unduly harmful to their business. You can’t assert that ISIS doesn’t have the right to fight against a government that violates God’s law. You can’t assert that pedophiles are obligated to obey consent laws that don’t take into account how “special” their relationship with their victims is.