Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the deal with motor vehicle violations?
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 91 of 239 (763482)
07-25-2015 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Percy
07-24-2015 5:56 PM


Percy writes:
"I fought the school and the school won." Would taking on the "law" be any easier?
The difference is that the school system is aimed at middle-class white people; it's middle-class white people versus middle-class white people. The police, on the other hand, are middle-class white people against "them" - them often being lower-class black or brown people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 07-24-2015 5:56 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 07-25-2015 12:19 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 92 of 239 (763483)
07-25-2015 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by ringo
07-25-2015 11:52 AM


The trouble with fighting the school system is that there's usually no legal recourse. For educational issues there's a meta-legal system set up with forms to fill out and hearings before an administrator and so forth, but no judges or courts. Just finding a lawyer who will listen to you takes months. The system is hamstrung. Fighting the law might be easier because at least there's a well-defined legal process.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ringo, posted 07-25-2015 11:52 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 239 (763485)
07-25-2015 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Faith
07-25-2015 8:29 AM


They see me rolling... they're hatin', patrollin'
but also because cooperation puts him at ease and you don't want to deal with a cop who's scared you might be about to shoot him. I would think that would be the best policy for anybody, blacks too, or maybe especially.
I find this advice a bit over the top. What I am suggesting is that you don't take on the cops over situations that are settled law against you and that you don't go admitting a bunch of details to the police. The police can conduct a Terry stop if they have an articulated suspicion of criminal activity. So not getting out of a car when a policeman tells you to is not a great plan unless you are involved in a planned Rosa Parks type civil disobedience activity. Best to have witnesses set up and a video camera controlled by your side in place as well.
I don't have any advice for what to do when the police put you in a choke hold.
So you have to know the law when you decide to do or not do exactly what a policeman says. That means you don't have to give the police your ID if you are in a legal situation where the police don't have the right to ask you for an ID. You don't have to answer police questions about much of anything.
Most importantly don't go around ridin' dirty.
On the other hand, Percy tells us about doing things like resisting arrest vigorously because he has a kid in the car, when he could just tell the police about his kid. Apparently he learned that from this country's forefathers, or maybe Martin Luther King or Thoreau. Maybe from the Boston Tea Party.
I'm sure some blacks' experiences with the police have led them to enough suspiciousness to account for reactions like Sandra Bland's
Not sure what was up with Sandra. I want to see an un-doctored video tape.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 07-25-2015 8:29 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Percy, posted 07-25-2015 1:03 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 94 of 239 (763486)
07-25-2015 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by NoNukes
07-25-2015 12:55 PM


Re: They see me rolling... they're hatin', patrollin'
NoNukes writes:
On the other hand, Percy tells us about doing things like resisting arrest vigorously because he has a kid in the car, when he could just tell the police about his kid. Apparently he learned that from this country's forefathers, or maybe Martin Luther King or Thoreau. Maybe from the Boston Tea Party.
Yeah, right, that's what I said.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by NoNukes, posted 07-25-2015 12:55 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 239 (763487)
07-25-2015 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Percy
07-25-2015 8:50 AM


I've gotten calmer and politer with age, but I don't know about following orders. I don't smoke, but say I was asked to remove my sunglasses. Would I obey? I'm sure I'd be very surprised at the request and would certainly at least pause to think.
Really? Do you think it is unreasonable for a policeman to want to compare your face to your picture ID. Requesting that you remove your sunglasses sounds like an entirely reasonable request to make during a minor traffic stop.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 07-25-2015 8:50 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Percy, posted 07-25-2015 2:00 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 239 (763490)
07-25-2015 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Percy
07-25-2015 7:47 AM


nor that what another officer's just done constitutes trickery or entrapment, nor that what yet another officer has done is to write a ticket for something based upon hearsay that he didn't witness.
I've never encountered a policeman writing a ticket based on anything except an eye witness report of himself or another policeman. Did we discuss that here? Did we discuss any situations that constituted entrapment? Did some policeman trick you into making an illegal turn?
The trivial nature of the offense is the whole point of this thread, that someone pulled over for the most minor of traffic violations ended up in jail.
Sandra refused an order to get out of the car. Have you ever done that? Have you ever even received such an order? Has a policeman ever told you to shut your pie hole, and you responded by continuing to mouth off.
Your make a mockery of the founding principles you claim to be upholding. What you do is mouth off to some degree and then pay your fines. If you want to really put a policeman in his place, go to court and press your case. Maybe you can set a legal precedent in your locality.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Percy, posted 07-25-2015 7:47 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Percy, posted 07-25-2015 2:25 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 97 of 239 (763491)
07-25-2015 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by NoNukes
07-25-2015 1:28 PM


NoNukes writes:
Really? Do you think it is unreasonable for a policeman to want to compare your face to your picture ID. Requesting that you remove your sunglasses sounds like an entirely reasonable request to make during a minor traffic stop.
Sure, for purposes of identification it's perfectly reasonable, but ID was no longer in question when Sandra Bland was asked to put out the cigarette. ID had already been established, the ticket was already filled out, he was about to hand it to her. I was trying to put myself in the same situation as Sandra Bland, but I don't smoke, so I thought of sunglasses.
But if you don't like the sunglasses scenario, then lets try something else. Let's say I'm still wearing my sports cap and the officer asks me to remove it as he's about to hand me the ticket. I'm sure I'd be very surprised at the request and would certainly at least pause to think.
Or maybe you don't like that scenario, either. My radio would already be off so I could hear the officer, so he wouldn't ask me to turn off the radio. How about maybe I'm drinking a coffee and he asks me to put the coffee down. I'm sure I'd be very surprised at the request and would certainly at least pause to think.
But I think you're missing the reason behind these speculations, which is to try to imagine how oneself, an average law abiding citizen, might find oneself arrested. I've tried to find a scenario where I might be caught off-guard and surprised and where I might pause, which might be interpreted as failure to comply. Do you think it could possibly happen to you, that you could unwittingly put yourself in a situation where you could be arrested?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by NoNukes, posted 07-25-2015 1:28 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by NoNukes, posted 07-25-2015 7:03 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 98 of 239 (763493)
07-25-2015 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by NoNukes
07-25-2015 1:42 PM


NoNukes writes:
I've never encountered a policeman writing a ticket based on anything except an eye witness report of himself or another policeman. Did we discuss that here? Did we discuss any situations that constituted entrapment? Did some policeman trick you into making an illegal turn?
This is some weird combination of not reading the thread and amnesia and skepticism and ridicule and disagreement, so I'm not going to try to sort it all out. You're annoyed again. Get over it.
Your make a mockery of the founding principles you claim to be upholding.
The person repeatedly demonstrating no respect for or even awareness of founding principles has been you.
What you do is mouth off to some degree...
Sir, I do not mouth off. I raise very specific and concrete concerns.
If you want to really put a policeman in his place, go to court and press your case. Maybe you can set a legal precedent in your locality.
One can't fight warnings. With the one ticket I mentioned where I was going 90 mph, I really was going 90 mph. There would have been no point in fighting it in court, and even if I decided to fight it anyway there would not have been any opportunity to address the nonsensical comment from the officer that I objected to, about traffic going 55 mph.
I've been trying to talk about my concerns about the possibility that traffic stops for minor infractions can result in arrest. I am, as I've said from the beginning, concerned and dismayed, particularly for the minority community. There's a good editorial in today's NTY about DWB: On the Death of Sandra Bland and Our Vulnerable Bodies. These are the kinds of issues we should be talking about here.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by NoNukes, posted 07-25-2015 1:42 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 07-25-2015 3:30 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 101 by NoNukes, posted 07-25-2015 7:19 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 99 of 239 (763496)
07-25-2015 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Percy
07-25-2015 2:25 PM


I read the article and appreciate some of her points about how merely being black attracts police suspiciousness. But Sandra Bland is not a good example for making her point. The writer starts out saying there was no reason for her to be pulled over. Well, but there was. She failed to signal, and that raises a red flag for the police. That may seem trivial in a way, but it's not "no reason" to stop her. (I've been stopped many times for such seemingly trivial reasons. Such as for having a taillight or headlight or signal light out. Once for running a stop sign in a sleeping residential neighborhood with no cars on the road at one in the morning for instance. The cop acted like I might be a desperate criminal the way he sort of crouched as he approached.)
The writer also says nothing about Sandra Bland's resistance to doing what the officer asked her to do. I'd expect a cop to treat anybody who acted that way with less than respect for their vulnerable personhood. She treated the cop with contempt, she refused to obey the lawful order to get out of the car. You can't claim police harassment for being black when she acted that way.
This case is just not a good case for the generalizations the writer wants to make about blackness itself as the cause of police mistreatment or overreaction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Percy, posted 07-25-2015 2:25 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 239 (763497)
07-25-2015 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Percy
07-25-2015 2:00 PM


I will agree that the police can make an unreasonable requests. You just picked a bad example when you chose sunglasses. Don't make more out of it than that. It is not a matter of me not liking your example.
And yes you can come up with silly requests that might be made, but what would be the point of those unless they were actually being used? So far, the cigarette is the most interesting example offered yet. It is on the fringe of acceptability, but a refusal is not suspicious at all. So why did things escalate?
Let us say that you dont see any reason for removing the ball cap, but the policeman does see one? What ought to happen next? Maybe the policeman does not want to alert you to the reason? what happens when you refuse?
,

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Percy, posted 07-25-2015 2:00 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Percy, posted 07-26-2015 8:43 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 239 (763498)
07-25-2015 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Percy
07-25-2015 2:25 PM


While it is possible to be arrested for minor traffic violations, that is a very poor characterization of the Sandra's situation. The real problem is the citizen-police interaction during traffic stops. The policeman in this case unreasonably escalated the situation in ways that did not even remotely advance a legitimate law enforcement objective. That much is not in dispute between you and I.
In fact I am guessing that an unedited video would make the police look even worse, but I have not seen that yet.
Otherwise, your complaints about arrests for traffic violations has yet to be shown as anything but hypothetical. It is okay to still talk about that, but you should expect posters to point out that your hypothetical does not seem to fit Bland's case.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Percy, posted 07-25-2015 2:25 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 102 of 239 (763509)
07-26-2015 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by NoNukes
07-25-2015 7:03 PM


NoNukes writes:
I will agree that the police can make an unreasonable requests. You just picked a bad example when you chose sunglasses. Don't make more out of it than that. It is not a matter of me not liking your example.
To be more precise, I picked something that *you* think is a bad example. Don't pretend your opinions reflect some kind of general consensus. I explained why there was nothing wrong with it and you ignored the explanation and merely repeated your original claim. And independent of the quality of the example you seem to be missing the point, which was that this was just a personal exploration for me to try to find something that might help me understand what Sandra Bland was feeling when she was asked to put out her cigarette. It is how well I achieve something resembling that feeling that is pertinent, not whether my chosen example was perfect.
Let us say that you dont see any reason for removing the ball cap, but the policeman does see one? What ought to happen next? Maybe the policeman does not want to alert you to the reason? What happens when you refuse?
Wow, that's a tough one. In my scenario I said all I would likely do when confronted with an unexpected and seemingly extraneous request is pause to think. I can't imagine what might cause me to refuse. That seems very unlikely for me. If he asked me to open the trunk I might say something like, "I don't mind doing that, but can you tell me why you'd like to look in the trunk?" It would have to be an unusual request before I'd refuse. Hmmm. Say he asked me to hand him my keys. That would get a long, long pause. I'd definitely ask him why. What if he said he thinks I'm a flight risk, which is ridiculous and obviously contrived. Now I'm very concerned that I'm being set up. Now I fear that whatever I do he's going to escalate until something happens. Now what?
But again, what *I* might say or do isn't the point here. These are just exercises to try to get close to what Sandra Bland was feeling. The central issue concerns what someone has the right to say or do, and what I'm saying in this thread is that a person receiving a ticket has the right to express himself. However unwise that might be, they still have that right. Yes, they risk that an officer might get ticked off enough by what is said to purposefully escalate the situation, but that tells us more about the officer than anything else, and it does not in any way diminish the right to freedom of expression, within the reasonable constraints that are usually accompanied by the familiar example of not being allowed to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by NoNukes, posted 07-25-2015 7:03 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by NoNukes, posted 07-26-2015 1:09 PM Percy has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 239 (763521)
07-26-2015 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Percy
07-26-2015 8:43 AM


o be more precise, I picked something that *you* think is a bad example. Don't pretend your opinions reflect some kind of general consensus.
I am not going to label my opinions as opinions. But asking people to remove sunglasses during identification is neither bizarre nor is it difficult to understand. The policeman might want to see if your eyes suggest that you are under the influence. Are you really going to refuse to admit that those are reasons to ask someone to remove their sunglasses?
At best your example was no good at being clearly abusive. In my opinion, the example was clearly bad. Use some imagination.
What if he said he thinks I'm a flight risk, which is ridiculous and obviously contrived. Now I'm very concerned that I'm being set up. Now I fear that whatever I do he's going to escalate until something happens. Now what?
If a policeman is setting you up, what can you do about it at a traffic stop? What happens if you are wrong and you've simply misinterpreted the situation? When is your fear justified?
I don't know if your judgment process is good or bad, and I don't know of your personal aversion to risk level, so I cannot tell you how to maximize your rights so you look the most like your founding fathers without getting yourself into more trouble than you are comfortable with handing.
What I can tell you is that the current state of the law puts a lot of discretion in the hands of police who make traffic stops. It does not take much more than suspicion to get to the point where an order to get out of the car is legally justified. For many people such orders are tripping points because they feel they are going to be arrested.
In Sarah's case, I don't see the elements required for a Terry stop (which by the way is not an arrest), and i don't think she should have been ordered out of her car. I cannot recall right now whether Sandra declined a reasonably expressed order to get out of the car, and when the office became abusive. What would you have done when told to get out of the car if the policeman simply repeated his order without explanation?
After having seen how Sarah was treated, what advice would you give your own daughter?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : add some clarification

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Percy, posted 07-26-2015 8:43 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Percy, posted 07-26-2015 4:14 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 104 of 239 (763535)
07-26-2015 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by NoNukes
07-26-2015 1:09 PM


NoNukes writes:
Are you really going to refuse to admit that those are reasons to ask someone to remove their sunglasses?
It's as if you're some kind of amnesiac. I first replied, "Sure, for purposes of identification it's perfectly reasonable, but..." Right off the bat I acknowledged that you might have a point.
But go back to Message 97 and read what came after the "but" so you can finally, three attempts later, address my explanation for why your objection based upon establishing ID makes no sense if one is trying to set up a situation similar to the Sandra Bland case.
But asking people to remove sunglasses during identification is neither bizarre nor is it difficult to understand. The policeman might want to see if your eyes suggest that you are under the influence.
This seems inconsistent with your own advice to not proffer evidence to the police if you do not have to, and poking around the Internet, the consensus seems to be that you're under no obligation to remove your sunglasses but that not doing so may provoke suspicion and cause escalation. One comment I saw at a bulletin board by a criminal defense lawyer: "Legally you are probably on sound footing to politely say to the officer that unless it is required you prefer to keep your glasses on. Now practically it's probably not a sound tactic. Reality is that upsetting a police officer in the field comes with a price. The price depends on how professional the police officer is and how experienced. You draw the wrong police officer and you can find yourself spending a few hours appeasing a manufactured investigation."
But this is all beside the point. Better would be to read the first paragraph of Message 102 again, where I explain that coming up with perfect examples isn't the point. You're completely focused on what are at most minor and unimportant defects that make no meaningful difference and missing what's important.
What if he said he thinks I'm a flight risk, which is ridiculous and obviously contrived. Now I'm very concerned that I'm being set up. Now I fear that whatever I do he's going to escalate until something happens. Now what?
If a policeman is setting you up, what can you do about it at a traffic stop? What happens if you are wrong and you've simply misinterpreted the situation? When is your fear justified?
Sure, you could speculate all day. I posted a link recently to an article discussing how it isn't possible for anyone pulled over to know what's in the mind of the officer, and that the law is structured in ways that place people in impossible Catch-22 situations as they try to balance their rights against their wish to not be arrested.
I don't know if your judgment process is good or bad, and I don't know of your personal aversion to risk level, so I cannot tell you how to maximize your rights so you look the most like your founding fathers...
Calling it "mouthing off" for merely expressing one's opinions and making these denigrating references to arguments from basic principles isn't helping your credibility.
What I can tell you is that the current state of the law puts a lot of discretion in the hands of police who make traffic stops.
Yes, we know. That's what we're discussing here, the fact that being stopped for a minor traffic violation can result in arrest. What we've established pretty clearly so far is that if an officer is so motivated, any traffic stop for anyone could result in arrest. If an officer wants a reason to arrest you he has it within his power to create one, including, apparently, having no reason at all. It isn't an issue of whether police would reasonably use this power. The issue of concern is that they have this power, with all the accompanying potential for abuse.
In Sarah's case, I don't see the elements required for a Terry stop (which by the way is not an arrest), and i don't think she should have been ordered out of her car. I cannot recall right now whether Sandra declined a reasonably expressed order to get out of the car, and when the office became abusive.
Here's the YouTube video queued up to precisely the right spot just for you:
What would you have done when told to get out of the car if the policeman simply repeated his order without explanation?
Will you be soporifically nitpicking the response to pieces, or will there be a reasoned discussion centered on the actual topic?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by NoNukes, posted 07-26-2015 1:09 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by NoNukes, posted 07-26-2015 4:44 PM Percy has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 239 (763537)
07-26-2015 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Percy
07-26-2015 4:14 PM


This seems inconsistent with your own advice to not proffer evidence to the police if you do not have to, and poking around the Internet, the consensus seems to be that you're under no obligation to remove your sunglasses but that not doing so may provoke suspicion and cause escalation
Removing your glasses is no more a fifth amendment issue than is having your fingerprints taken. The two things are not related at all. Taking off your glasses is not considered testimonial. If you end up getting arrested, you might end up with your glasses off as well as your trousers. You may end up having a warrant issues and having your blood tested without your consent. Your glasses may be removed from your face. And yet the police still cannot require you to answer incriminating questions.
I don't find any online consensus about not taking off your glasses. Yes I can find statements on the Internet suggesting that you don't have to take off your sunglasses. Almost all of them are accompanied by statements not to talk to police officers. I can also easily find statements saying that taking off your glasses is part of the identification process.
but that not doing so may provoke suspicion and cause escalation
But let's take this as a correct statement of law. How should you react given this knowledge. Are you prepared for an order to get out of the car so that the officer can conduct a pat down? Do you have the impression that not taking off your glasses is in the spirit of throwing tea into the harbor, but answering police questions is not?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Percy, posted 07-26-2015 4:14 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 07-26-2015 5:55 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024