# I admire the tenacity of republicans

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614>\
**Category:** The BBQ Pit\
**Created:** [July 20, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614 "2014-07-20T18:13:18Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 91

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\
**Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/91 "2014-07-21T11:53:02Z")

</div>

> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#):
>
> I think you mean “legal reasoning” in that last sentence, given that the OP did in fact put down some reasoning on the subject.
> 
> That said; none of those threads were about lawsuits. However,[this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=537393) was about convictions,

No, it wasn’t “about convictions.” It was about the tactic of trying to discourage a group of student volunteers who were helping to overturn convictions by investigating each volunteer’s past for misdeeds. There was no legal issue in play. It was beyond cavil that the work the students were doing was legal. No part of that OP is a commentary on a disputed legal issue.

> [@](#):
>
> and [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=400240) was about an arrest, both of which I would say are about “legal stuff” on which an opinion could have been given to the same extent as a lawsuit.

This thread condemns the arrest of a boy for opening a Christmas present early.

And it’s a good example. I posted a thread implicitly criticizing the police and the mother without much in the way of analysis. That was quickly revealed to have been an error by the rest of the SDMB, leading me to concede:

> [@12 year old boy arrested for opening Christmas present early](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/12-year-old-boy-arrested-for-opening-christmas-present-early/384291/41):
>
> When I started the thread I was Pitting the mother (mostly) and the cops.
> 
> Of course, I was going only on the info presented in the link I offered, The Smoking Gun, Subsequent discussion has led me to believe that it’s perhaps not as cut-and-dried pittable a situation as I imagined.

In other words, I was shown to have posted without the kind of analysis that I should have done.

> [@](#):
>
> Here is an [additional](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=319037) thread about a lawsuit which you did not lay out your legal reasoning in the OP.

Yes, I did. I described the specific suit in play and the facts which supported it:

> [@Police Abuse Power in Confiscating Dirty Pics](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-abuse-power-in-confiscating-dirty-pics/306248/1):
>
> In [Hudson, Ohio](http://www.newsnet5.com/crimestoppers/4544803/detail.html), a cop who accidentally stuck his cruiser in the mud didn’t much like it when a passer-by took pictures of the incident.
> 
> I wouldn’t like it much either. But I wouldn’t have the power to do what this cop did: radio for a fellow officer to stop the photographer for no good reason, then confiscate the smart card on the digital camera and erase the images.
> 
> This confrontation was caught on video tape, and the city suspended the officer for one day. The photographer is suing the city for $25,000, saying his civil rights were violated.

Officer stops car and destroys photos taken by driver, because those photos show officer’ scar stuck in mud. Driver claims this violates his civil rights and is suing. And I said I agreed the suit had merit, and that the officer had no good faith reason to do what he did:

> [@Police Abuse Power in Confiscating Dirty Pics](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-abuse-power-in-confiscating-dirty-pics/306248/1):
>
> The officer’s abuse of his position was blatant. I’m not sure I see how he could have possibly believed this was appropriate, and how his supervisors can possibly believe he should remain employed.

All from the OP. That OP is an excellent example of offering relevant legal facts about a legal issue. It’s a perfect contrast with what this OP did NOT do: make any mention of the specific issues or reasons the lawsuit was infirm (or justified).

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614)._