Damn computer ate my long reply. Not typing that out again.
But thats a good start.
My post was intended to counter You with the Face’s “gotcha”, which appears to me to go along the following lines. You folks like seeing a black guy get pepper sprayed. But you folks also believe in stand your ground/castle doctrine. Cops are your heros. You think black people are bad. But you fools! Don’t you see that some bad black guy could shoot your hero cops using your own rules! How do you like them apples!
Which IMO sucks on a couple of levels. First the argument is kinda built on racism as a given to work. And it kinda sucks as it fails to see the issue in terms of variable possible outcomes and multiple components that are not totally intertwined.
So, my two examples were to counter that “gotcha”.
And yes, I believe as a general principle you do what the cop says, legal or no. Thats not the place to have that fight and I think such a position can be defended as correct as a matter of principle AND as a matter of pragmatism.
And before someone gets butt hurt due to poor reading skills, “can be defended” does not mean “obviously right”.
If they give you an illegal command, you can resist. Then you may get forced to comply.
And if later, that resistance you showed doesn’t get you in any legal trouble because the command was illegal, then you did have the RIGHT to resist. You just didn’t like some of the consequences of resisting.
“Clearly”? Clearly, it wasn’t clear or else we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Which part of my analysis of your exchange with You With the Face is altered by the rest of the sentence?
I am sorry if you took it that way. I certainly did not intend it that way. And I am not one of those “see what I can get away with” or “how close to line can I dance” sorta posters.
I made my post about the two different scenarios. And I don’t think there was anything particularly complicated about it.
After posting that I was starting to work up in my mind an analogy about how this situation could be viewed as a car with various parts that do various things and how you need to understand how they interact and why they are the way they are and what exactly you want to accomplish before you try to tune one. You can’t start just getting angry/frustrated and twiddling with random stuff and make any progress.
While I was doing that you came along, read my two scenario post and had totally flubbed your analysis before you had even finished my first important sentence. Which is probably why you deleted that post pretty quick.
So, now I am thinking, this isn’t just an angry person who IMO doesn’t get how this whole car thing works, they don’t even have a clue. And monkey working on a car popped into my mind.
My bad there. But not remotely intentional or trying to get someones goat or be sly.
It is funny though that in calling me a “angry monkey” because you thought I was posting impulsively, you yourself posted impulsively. Not just because you didn’t think through the racial implications of your word choice, but because you posted before I went back and did a better job responding to you. Your comment was a real head scratcher because I actually thanked you for looking at things from Currie’s perspective.
But I do appreciate you at least owning up to the ugliness.
I already posted a link about a guy who was acquitted for shooting several cops conducting a knockless raid in his home. So we know what precedence has determined. Whether he “knew full well they were police” would probably be up to the jury to decide. If he claimed he didn’t know, I would not care enough to doubt him and I would be okay with him getting off.
If he claimed he did know they were police and killed them anyway, then I wouldn’t be okay. But you know, there’s a huge middle between shooting at cops and not making it easy for cops to violate you in your own home because…AGENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT! I’m somewhere in that middle.
There are certain posters that are ubiquitous in certain threads. People that always show up to debate guns, abortion, religion, whatever. If you are ever in those even the teensiest bit, you begin to learn stuff about folks. And since you and monstro forever fight the good fight in these threads revolving around racism, I find it almost impossible to believe that someone wouldn’t (1) know your backstory and realize you are black, (2) be super cognitive of NOT saying anything that even had a tinge of bigotry to it, and then (3) come up with such a lame ass excuse. “A monkey working on a car”?? I get that I’m not ancient or anything, nor have I lived everywhere, but even down here in the south during my 46 years, I’ve never heard that expression. So, yeah, I think you might be gullible here. I’m sorry.
When my various DIY handiwork projects turn out rather poorly “looks like a drunk monkey did it” is one of my typical descriptors for the finished product.
Take that for what you will.
And thats probably all the bait I’m gonna take on this.
You’re being deliberately obtuse. We’re talking about you taking 3 words, out of context, from a sentence and claiming they have a special meaning exclusive of what the sentence states. You need to read the entire sentence to get the full thought. It’s amazing you need to be told this.
You don’t have to apologize, faithfool. If costs me little to give powerless jackasses on a message board the benefit of the doubt. Especially since I count on folks like you and others to keep it 100%.
You know how I said that you have to build total fantasy versions of us in order to make yourself feel better? This is exhibit A. In order for your construct to work, you, like an orthodox Marxist, have to believe that your ideological opponents secretly know that you’re right.
Problem is, we don’t know that. It’s not because we’re too dense to recognize your rectitude, though.
No, I am not. I made an observation regarding the implication of your exchange with You With the Face. I abbreviated your comments merely for the sake of convenience, without changing the meaning of your words at all.
[/quote]
We’re talking about you taking 3 words, out of context, from a sentence and claiming they have a special meaning exclusive of what the sentence states. You need to read the entire sentence to get the full thought. It’s amazing you need to be told this.
[/QUOTE]
You’re simply wrong about that. I can put all those words back in the sentence and it has exactly the same meaning.
Observe:
I believe that this clearly (to use your word) means exactly the same thing as I said before.
However, if you honestly believe that I removed any relevant context, then I have resupplied all possible context and that objection is obviated. Now I invite you respond to the substance of my statement.
If you are still confused, then I’ll restate it:
If a cop has the right to counter your resistance with force in order to make you comply, then, as an irrefutable matter of logic, you have no such right to resist.
If you have a right to resist, then a cop does not have an unfettered right to use force to make you comply.
Given that, do you or do you not have a right to resist in the matter stated by You With a Face?
You called her a monkey and I’m the one that’s baiting you? The Dope never ceases to plumb the depths of bullshit, does it? But keep up with the plausible deniability ;), you wear it well.
I just really like you sisters and hate when lying assholes are, well, assholes. The lying part is expected. Anyway, I know you’re good.
