Right, because they’re so afraid of this because you’re the only one who’s ever said you’ll argue the constitution. Again, this is just a belief on your part, or did they say “since you’re playing the constitution card, we’re suddenly pussified and you’re free to go.”?
That would be the same pedestrian underpass where a homeless man was stabbed to death a couple years ago. It’s approximately one block from Parliament.
I’m an activist and organizer with 20+ years of experience. And you’re… not. I find it highly annoying that you’re simply scoffing at every word I write, especially something like this which, if you knew anything at all about activism, wouldn’t be even slightly controversial. The State hates constitutional arguments, since they establish precedents which overturn unjust laws. If there is even the slightest chance that a constitutional argument will prevail in court, the Crown almost inevitably drops the charges.
In this specific case, how do I know?
My lawyer had several CPTs (Crown Pre-Trials) to discuss a number of issues, such as how many slots our trial would require. The Crown wanted to restrict us to two slots (one full day) while we argued that we needed at least six (three full days). Since the courts are packed to overflowing, my lawyer had to argue before a judge as to why we required this much court time. The court at first guessed we were bluffing, so my lawyer had to lay out the basis of the grounds for our constitutional challenge. If it had been nonsensical or worthless, the judge could have refused to hear it at trial. Instead, the judge declined to make a decision on scheduling the trial, instead scheduling another remand. At remand, the Crown announced that they were dropping all charges, as, they said, they did not believe a conviction was possible and it was not in the court’s interest to pursue the matter.
Furthermore, my lawyer had been prepared for this and warned me it might happen. We wanted the trial to proceed, so that we could establish a precedent which would assist us in our lawsuit. Once the charges had been dropped, the lawyer would no longer have standing to officially address the court, so I was prepared with a request for the court. In theory, the Crown proposes charges and the judge decides which charges (or whether the charges) will proceed to trial; in practice, the judge nearly always rubber-stamps the Crown’s proposal. So I asked to address the court in order to request that the judge force the Crown to proceed on the charges. My argument was that clearly these were extremely serious charges, as the bail conditions the Crown and the police had tried to impose on me were quite severe (I refused them and went to prison instead, using the time to organize the inmates to fight for better conditions); I had a right to stand trial. The judge angrilly denied me permission to address the court, and my lawyer couldn’t. It’s quite clear they didn’t want anything on the record – they just wanted the charges to vanish.
Despite the fact that I happen to hold views you don’t agree with, I am not a stupid man, I am not delusional, and I’d appreciate it if you didn’t keep calling me on every single word which passes through my keyboard, especially in regard to subjects where I have a great deal of experience.
Stephen Beriault, street name Cactus. He assisted us in our activities, and was in fact one of the street kids who helped us occupy the lobby of the police station to demand the firing of Berakat, the cop who liked to beat up street kids.
Of course it does. Cite?
This is precisely what I said earlier: prosecutors work economically: is this case worth the effort to pursue. In this case, you weren’t worth the effort. Possible because prosecuting you would generate more interest in the situation than they’d want; that’s the marginalizing you bit. Refusing to prosecute leaves you sit out there tilting at windmills, desperately trying to be relevant or something.
And I’d appreciate if you wouldn’t act as though you’re fucking psychic capable of reading the minds of all police officers. If you want to be treated like you’re smarter, then write like you are. Thus far, your arguments have been essentially “I know”. And the support for the argument is that you know because you know. Indeed, when talking about what’s in the minds of police officers, which I spent a great deal of column space writing on, you offer this in rebuttal, “especially in regard to subjects where I have a great deal of experience.” You have exactly squat in the way of knowing what people are thinking.
You aren’t psychic, are you?
My issue isn’t that you have a contrary view (indeed, nothing here suggests that I even disagree with your quest), it’s your wild assertions stemming from the idea that because what you feel is profound, so too is your penetralia, and thus your observations and thoughts. Such isn’t the case, for anyone.
It’s one thing to say “I felt like they wanted to beat me”. But you didn’t. You said you know they did. Apparently, you give zero credit to people for the actions they do or don’t take. In this case, why is it unreasonable to conclude that they didn’t want to beat you? Because they beat you? Oh wait, they didn’t. You can spitball all day long about the reasons, dubious as they are, but it could at least equally be the case that they don’t want to slap the snot out of you. No amount of grandiose woe is me bullshit will change that.
You know, I thought this was hyperbole at first, but the more he posts, the more I believe it.
Me too, because if personal testimony about someone else was thinking isn’t convincing, then repetition shall be!
Let me state this for you to digest again: I’m not accusing you of not agreeing with everything Rand ever said. I’m accusing you of **not having read her **in the first place. This of course makes understanding an author rather difficult. Your ignorance of her works and basic philosophy is so astounding that the only reasonable conclusion is that you haven’t actually read any of them. See for example.
I want to thank SmashTheState for saying stuff so phenomenally stupid that my own stupidity pales to insignificance, and which has all of us, including me, ashman165, RandRover, and Dissonance, holding hands and singing Kumbaya in agreement that he’s an idiot. Okay, maybe not the last two, but everybody else.
Dude, quoting that post was not your best move. In that post, I am clearly talking about one society using force against another. You respond with quotes in which Rand talks about use of force by a government within one society. You lose. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
Someone’s laughing, Lord, kumbaya . . .
Actually, though I despise pretty much everything you promote, RR, you aren’t some aging post-hippy. I am a liberal-of-a-certain-age who has always disliked conservatives and libertarians in particular, but I am especially dismissive of 40-ish (and younger) Hippies who missed The Movement by DECADES, but still haven’t figured it out.
In the end, it’s the battle between the True Believers and the Dilletantes that really counts. 
Smash, an interesting question for you comes to mind. How is it not illegal to destroy public property?
Funny, I was noting your utter ignorance in the statement that
As I said back then, it’s as if someone with a username Christ is Lord were to argue not only that Jesus isn’t the son of God but that there is no reference to Christ in the New Testament. The illegitimacy of taking things by force is so much at the core of Ayn’s philosophy that your inability to realize this makes it blindingly obvious to anyone who has read anything by Ayn that you haven’t actually read anything of hers first-hand.
The within one society bit just makes it sadder since she lays out in black and white the only function of a government in her philosophy is being an agent of self-defense “and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use” so many times in her writings that it’s impossible to miss. How much more point blank can you get than “The initiation of physical force is evil; force and mind are opposites. Force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who start its use.”
I notice that you still haven’t denied never having read any of her books.
Nice attempt to rehash the fight you already lost. You fail again. Rand was focused on the relationship between a government and the governed, so you can’t just take any old quote about a government’s use of force and think it applies with respect to the relartionship between a government and a different society.
On your last paragraph, I’m not going to jump through your hoops, you jackass. Also, you still haven’t denied having been lobotomized.
Our plan was to replace the lock with one of our own. According to the “mischief” law with which I was charged, it is based on damage to the intended use of the property. By replacing the lock, no damage would effectively be done; and in fact, our argument was that the city, by erecting the fence, had committed mischief (and worse) by denying the public the use of the space. Filing private criminal charges against the councillors was actually one of the legal strategies we explored.
I suppose that when they repaint something then it’s also vandalism.
“Us four authoritarians all agree, the guy who disagrees with us is a dummy!” Well, now that you’ve frightened away the scary, strange-looking monkey who lacks the comforting pack smell by shaking the branches and hooting and throwing your poop, does this mean you’ll go back to placidly picking ticks off each other’s backs?
Wait: So if I come to your house in the middle of the night, change your locks, give you a key, give everyone who has your old key your new key, and say it’s ok if you give keys to anyone you want, that’s ok? COOL! Since there’s been no “damage”, that’s fine, right? No trespassing, damaging property, theft of the previous lock, nothing like that, happened, so I’m golden, since there’s a net zero effect (old lock=new lock). Of course, I’ll still have a copy of the key, and give it to anyone I want, and if you object, I’ll sue you, because I didn’t do anything wrong. I broke a lock and replaced a lock.
Even now you can’t evaluate an argument properly. That he asserted such is the case doesn’t mean such is the case. I merely chose not to respond to that statement of his until such time as you laid your next pearl upon us. Now that you’ve crapped your wisdom on us again, I can see my patience was worthwhile.
Who said I’m an authoritarian? That’s your assumption. You seem to think that because I take umbrage with your dimwitted arguments that it follows I don’t share the conclusion (even when the conclusion is supported by exactly none of your premises). I may or may not agree with your conclusions, but it’s immaterial to the conversation.