The BBQ Pit: For rants about the world or beefs with another poster. Says it right there on the box.
He’s just trying to raise the tone to a mature and refined level. Not on my watch.
Neither is it a haven from all arguments but those of a legal nature.
The legal point of view is the only thing worth discussing to resolve the legal question.
The resolution of the passionate opinion question doesn’t have any difficulty. It has no one to argue with. Which poster here supports the ideas that this was an ideal display of community policing?
Horseshit.
Democrats removed the filibuster for nominations. Democrats voted down Bork. Democrats passed the ACA by reconciliation. All of this was peachy keen. Your fidelity to these institutions arises only when the institutions in question align with your desired outcome.
When the Supreme Court decided that same-sex marriage was a constitutional requirement in the United States, did you bemoan their refusal to “be bound by examples set in the past?”
Or was that progress?
“Appropriate?” by what yardstick? By what standard?
This question is insidious; it suggests (without specifics) that there is a single standard to which all right-thinking peoples subscribe.
There’s a potential imminent threat to physical presence that doesn’t arise from a Facebook posting. So it’s possible that the face to face threat would cross the criminal line.
I’d say it would depend on the demeanor and delivery – would a reasonable person, hearing that comment face to face, believe that it amounted to a threat of physical harm based on the tone and demeanor of the delivery?
Is there something about rants or beefs that excludes fact-based argument?
Democrats are discovering the 10th amendment and federalism now.
Did the sheriff abuse his authority by misuse of the official resource of the official sheriff’s Facebook page?
That’s a question that has a legal nature. If the legal answer were unambiguously “yes,” you would be falling all over yourself pointing out how the sheriff violated the law.
Whichever criteria you think you know the answer to, Counsellor. I’d be happy just seeking a “consensus among good-spirited citizens” but since you may define “good-spirited” as hating dark-skinned people and loving guns, perhaps all we can hope for from you is a legal opinion.
Do I need to specify how much each side is spending for its legal team? Whether the judge is a good ol’ boy or a Mexican appointed by a Kenyan Islamist sympathizer? Are only police-approved video clips allowed to be introduced as evidence? For the jury pool are we stuck with Trumpist blowhards of a redneck ilk, or can we get a change of venue to a saner jurisdiction? Would it matter whether the 9th Scotus Justice is Obama’s Merrick Garland, or Trump’s Groom of the Stool?
No, but they demand a personal opinion. There’s no such thing as an objective rant.
Yes! Yes, it was! By Golly, I think he may be catching on! Is there a sale on fatted calf at Prodigal Sons 'R Us?
Seems to me you want a poll, then. “Was this a proper use of police power? Check yes or no.”
Unless there are undisclosed facts from the sheriff’s side of the story – which side we have not yet heard, I remind you – then I’d opine this was improper. Opine. Opinion.
The entire legal system is mysterious to you? Is it like you’re a Melanesian islander building a runway so that airplanes will land with wealth?
Sure, that’s what you say. But what is the consensus of good-spirited citizens on the point?
None of these descriptors requires discarding factual accuracy in favor of personal opinion.
And I’ll guess that now the discussion will turn on how useless the dictionary is in determining what words mean, and an impassioned plea that we determine the meaning of words by what you want them to mean?
Fuck this twaddle.
What is your opinion on the matter?
FINALLY! Geez! It’s like pulling teeth!
-which could totally happen in the back cells where nobody can hear a guy screaming, you bet, if the look at the sheriff sideways, so you better keep your head down.
Ok. Who read my opinion and seriously thought, “Finally, we have learned something relevant?” Which posters here believe my opinion is more relevant to the issue than a correct summary of the legal framework?
And if you do – why?
As an aside, I am a Redskins fan, so as far as I am concerned the sheriff is guilty of several grave wrongs even without the airport incident.
He certainly has no problem letting loose on Twitter, though. He’s admitted to daring people at the march yesterday to resort to violence. He doesn’t want to keep the peace. I wonder what he does want. It probably rhymes with “smacking bulls”.