I thought you were following?
We were discussing giving the police the same, if not more power, a judge can rule for contempt of court.
I argue that giving that sort of power to the police (contempt) is a road toward fascism.
Following what? Your post didn’t quote anyone else’s.
No, there should be no “contempt” laws for policemen. That’s a ridiculous suggestion. When you’re stopped, you can be polite, or you can be hostile. Cops are human, so, just like from any other human, if you’re hostile, expect worse treatment than if you were polite.
As I said, this is first world problems. I have lived in the US since 1980. I have had interactions with cops in a dozen of states, including just a few miles from where this incident occurred. I was always polite. So were they. Trust me, by world standards, that’s pretty amazing.
Sorry, I was confusing you with Smapti. Here’s the thread of discussion before you jumped in (FWIW, I agree with your quoted post):
So here are some experts talking about the amount of pot found in her system according to the Preliminary Toxicology Report. They seem to be of the opinion that it is very likely that she smoked it while she was in jail, because the levels were almost too high for her to have been functional three days earlier if it was already in her system.
Yes we should all give up our civil rights for convenience.
Would you say the same if the cop asked you to get out of the car so he could search it sans warrant? What if a bully wants to punch your kid. Do you tell him to just let him hit you since it’s more convenient? No? Then why should I give in to a bully cop giving illegal orders under color of law?
If his search is truly unlawful, then you will be able to contest it in court.
Wouldn’t it be nice if our police acted like First world cops? You know despite their constant whine for bigger budgets, they get paid pretty well. How much do we need to pay them not to be puffed up little cunts?
Do these problems exist in Canada, too?
I read it the first time. My question remains unanswered. One more time, with feeling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge
You said you wanted to “just wait”. I questioned whether you wanted to actually “just wait” or intended to not “just wait” and would just keep talking about the subject.
Shirley you must remember what your subject matter was?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmyk
How 'bout we just wait and see how this all shakes out in a court of law, as intended.
Did you intend to just wait or did you intend to keep talking about it. “IT” being your subject matter. You’re either going to keep talking about it, or you’re going to wait for the court case before discussing it again. It’s really a yes or no-type of answer, but you can expand your answer if you feel the need. Either you are or you aren’t. Your choice.
n/m
Some places pay well, others, not so much. Like so many other things, the quality of the services depends on the tax base, usually, the property tax base.
No, it does not.
It’s true that he cannot exercise his discretion based on protected speech, as a general rule. But it’s not true that this is manifestly what occurred here.
If he viewed the cigarette as a threat to his safety, politely asked her to extinguish it, and she refused, then he’s not changing his mind based on her protected speech, but on her possession of an item which can harm him.
No. But I think any jurist would credit his claim that given her obvious ire and combative attitude, he had some legitimate worry that he’d hand her the citation and she’d put out her cigarette on his hand.
He doesn’t need to do any of those things, though, under Rodriguez.
Because the time to contest those orders is in court.
Good glory. This is boring the shit out of me and feels like a huge, pointless tangent, but one more time:
I meant let’s wait and see what comes of the autopsy(s) and suicide investigation, rather than making bets on whether or not it was suicide, an accident or homicide.
I did not mean let’s wait and see before we discuss anything in this thread. I meant rather than making bets on who’s right, let’s just see how it shakes out with investigation. The notion of placing bets on this case landed inappropriate to me. That’s all I have to say on this.
:rolleyes:
Bricker, if you look me right in the monitor and sincerely declare that you believe that her cigarette was a compelling threat, well, OK. Sure can’t prove you’re not sincere, that’s between you and the face you shave.
But he’s standing outside her car. He has a taser, a pistol, a clipboard, baton(?), and a radio to call reinforcements. She has a lit cigarette. To apply her weapon she has to grab it and thrust it through the car window to a precise target. Precise target… eyeball or foreskin, something effective! Now, unless she can fling herself bodily through the window from a sitting position…Bruce Lee, eat your heart out!..then she only has an effective range as long as her arm.
He could step back two feet and talk louder.
So, seriously, you believe that? No shit? That this threat rises to a level that an otherwise unjustified act becomes kosher?
Bricker, since you’re back, might you please look at Post 1327?
Lets see - Encinia was in DPS, right? He was there about a year, so - Probationary Trooper. That’s $43,000 salary. Right on the median for US full-time employees. If you think that’s getting paid “pretty well”…
’luc, I think the brick has already declared his opinion that this cop’s actions were unacceptable. But he is also saying that, in a courtroom, if the cop claimed safety issues, the jurist would be very likely to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding the cigarette.
Suprising, given Texas’ legendary generosity towards the public sector, rivaling only with her wildly enthusiastic support for unions.
Starting salary (plus benefits) for a job with no college education or prior experience requirements?
What are the higher paid options for someone with that resume?