Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9072 total)
77 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), PurpleYouko, Tangle (7 members, 70 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,118 Year: 4,230/6,534 Month: 444/900 Week: 150/150 Day: 4/16 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jose Guerena
Taz
Member (Idle past 2523 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 76 of 116 (617537)
05-29-2011 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by crashfrog
05-29-2011 5:08 PM


Re: Really
crashfrog writes:

Oh, so you actually do break the law. All the time. You're just taking advantage of the loophole where police have informal enforcement discretion not to pay attention to people who don't speed more than 10 mph over.


Funny how you mentioned this.

So, when I was a rookie (straight out of the academy) I went to court for a DUI I caught. This guy probably realized I was a rookie so he really really tried to fight the DUI. In court, the lawyer asked me "officer, did you break any law in the last 48 hours?" When a question is asked like that, most people would think of criminal law, not traffic law. With confidence, I said no. As soon as I said that, he asked me "so, you did not go over the speed limit at all in the last 48 hours?" As soon as he said that, in my head I was screaming "oh shit, oh shit, oh shit...."

You're a funny person, sometimes, you know that? I've noticed that those who are on the side that's desperate tend to start nitpicking his way out.

You mean like our laws about operating motor vehicles on public highways? Those laws?

So... are you telling me you see no difference between traffic law and criminal law?

Murder has the lowest rate of recidivism of any crime. Sexual assault has the second lowest. The people you should be concerned about are thieves - property theft of all kinds has the highest recidivism rate of all crimes.

Yup, and I want them all on their own little island so they can rape, murder, and rob each other all they want.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2011 5:08 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2011 5:26 PM Taz has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 698 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 77 of 116 (617540)
05-29-2011 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Taz
05-29-2011 5:21 PM


Re: Really
I've noticed that those who are on the side that's desperate tend to start nitpicking his way out.

Nobody's "nitpicking", Taz. I'm just trying to show you your blind spot - you know, where when someone else breaks the law, he's a criminal scum, but when you break the law, those are just the reasonable, accidental infractions that people are entitled to. Well, "people" meaning you and people like you.

If you're entitled to the latitude to occasionally technically break the law and get away on a loophole, why isn't your DUI guy? He hadn't actually hurt anybody, had he?

So... are you telling me you see no difference between traffic law and criminal law?

The law's the law, isn't it? Are you saying that traffic laws aren't there to protect people? To keep people safe?

Yup, and I want them all on their own little island so they can rape, murder, and rob each other all they want.

How about bad cops? What island do they go to?

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Taz, posted 05-29-2011 5:21 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Taz, posted 05-29-2011 5:30 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 2523 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 78 of 116 (617541)
05-29-2011 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by crashfrog
05-29-2011 5:26 PM


Re: Really
crashfrog writes:

Nobody's "nitpicking", Taz. I'm just trying to show you your blind spot - you know, where when someone else breaks the law, he's a criminal scum, but when you break the law, those are just the reasonable, accidental infractions that people are entitled to. Well, "people" meaning you and people like you.


Ok, so let me get this straight. Someone goes into a 7 11 and rob the cashier at gun point is the same as me driving 7 over the speed limit. Is that what you're telling me?

The law's the law, isn't it? Are you saying that traffic laws aren't there to protect people? To keep people safe?

Have you ever studied law, crash? I have that big blue book. There are certain levels of offenses. Everything from traffic violation to class B misdemeanor to class A felony, and everything in between.

Are you telling me there is no difference between an armed robber and a person driving 7 over the speed limit?

How about bad cops? What island do they go to?

Same island.

Added by edit.

Me bringing up driving over the speed limit was to show you I'm not a perfectionist by any definition. I very much support leniency as far as violations go. But come on, you honestly can't tell the difference between an armed robber and a speeder?

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2011 5:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2011 11:31 PM Taz has replied
 Message 88 by Jaderis, posted 06-02-2011 2:20 AM Taz has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 116 (617559)
05-29-2011 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by crashfrog
05-27-2011 2:07 PM


Re: Be Afraid
crashfrog writes:


I don't fault the cops in the Amadou Diallo case - they were approaching a man who matched the description of the violent criminal they were chasing, he turned and grabbed something under his jacket, then a shot went off and one of the cops stumbled.

A very charitable description of events. Chasing a violent criminal makes it sound like there was a hot pursuit. The police were aware of an uncaptured serial rapist. But they weren't actively chasing the criminal from the scene of a crime. Meets the description is here a euphemism for matching a very generic profile of the serial rapist.

Apparently Diallo matched "some features" of the rapist. I'm guessing young, broad nose, and brown eyes.

Finally, why does the cop who stumbled get a free pass. Did Diallo drop a banana peel? "A shot went off" means a policeman fired a shot. The policeman stumbled only after at least one shot had been fired.

I can agree that at the instant triggers were pulled, the cops made the best decision they could. But some of the misinformation was created by the police.

We can certainly fault the investigative tactics used here, and the police who employed them. The tactics used here created a situation where the slightest mistake would be fatal, regardless of Diallo's guilt. The Special Patrol Group, or whatever they called the four policemen [Street Crime Unit] was disbanded because of this incident.

Similarly we can question the circumstances surrounding the decision to enter Guerena's house at a given time of day.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 05-27-2011 2:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2011 11:26 PM NoNukes has seen this message

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 698 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 80 of 116 (617595)
05-29-2011 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by NoNukes
05-29-2011 6:41 PM


Re: Be Afraid
The policeman stumbled only after at least one shot had been fired.

Or during, or before. My understanding is that his gun went off as a result of stumbling, and while you might counter that therefore the other policeman should have noticed that he saw his partner fall down and then heard the shot, it's a known feature of brains that they frequently don't perceive events in the order they happen, especially in tense situations.

But, look. I don't think these cops were blameless; I think they erred in setting up a situation where they felt like they had to gun down an unarmed man in order to feel safe. And I blame the training that made them feel like they were in a warzone, behind enemy lines, a second away from death, and that therefore they had to blaze or be blazed.

I just think they're not a tremendous example of police acting with impunity, because a reasonable person with the same stimulus - attempting to arrest a suspected violent criminal, subject reaching into a jacket to where a gun might be concealed, a shot fired, a partner suddenly down - also would likely have opened fire on Diallo. I have to honestly say that presented with all that evidence, I would have, too. Maybe I would have seen some other clues that Diallo was harmless, not a man firing on me from the dark with a concealed gun. But I haven't heard that any such evidence was available to those officers at that moment.

But some of the misinformation was created by the police.

Agreed.

Similarly we can question the circumstances surrounding the decision to enter Guerena's house at a given time of day.

Absolutely we can, and should. Top to bottom these tactics and decisions should be subject to the utmost scrutiny even when they don't go wrong. I would read into evidence the cases of Oscar Grant and the recent acquittal of officers Mata and Moreno for the rape of a young lady, despite videotape evidence of them breaking into and entering her apartment and taped confessions to non-consensual sexual intercourse with the resident.

http://www.nytimes.com/...ce-officers-acquitted-of-rape.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by NoNukes, posted 05-29-2011 6:41 PM NoNukes has seen this message

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 698 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 81 of 116 (617596)
05-29-2011 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Taz
05-29-2011 5:30 PM


Re: Really
Someone goes into a 7 11 and rob the cashier at gun point is the same as me driving 7 over the speed limit. Is that what you're telling me?

The law's the law, isn't it?

Put on your cop hat, for a second, and tell me what you think about the wisdom and feasibility of allowing private citizens to determine for themselves what laws count and what laws don't.

There are certain levels of offenses.

And in your giant blue book of law, are traffic laws under the heading "doesn't count"? Does it say in your blue book "haha, just kidding, not really a law" when it comes to speeding? I'd love to see the court's reaction when you try to explain that your ticket doesn't really count because, hey, nobody's perfect and we all break the law.

Oh, wait. You were there when that happened! As I recall you found that argument pretty risible.

Me bringing up driving over the speed limit was to show you I'm not a perfectionist by any definition.

No, you're a criminal by definition. A law-breaker. Someone who exploits loopholes to get away with breaking the laws he thinks it's ok to break. The really hilarious part about all that is that you hate loopholes. Not enough to stop using them, though, I guess.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Taz, posted 05-29-2011 5:30 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Taz, posted 05-30-2011 12:11 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 2523 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 82 of 116 (617603)
05-30-2011 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by crashfrog
05-29-2011 11:31 PM


Re: Really
crashfrog writes:

The law's the law, isn't it?

Put on your cop hat, for a second, and tell me what you think about the wisdom and feasibility of allowing private citizens to determine for themselves what laws count and what laws don't.


This is perhaps civilian misunderstanding of the law at its worst. Sorry, but this doesn't even warrant a response from me. If you can't tell the difference between different levels of offense, then there's no point for me to continue this further.

And in your giant blue book of law, are traffic laws under the heading "doesn't count"?

Actually, no. But it does spell out specifically that enforcing traffic laws are at the discretion of LEO's.

Again, see the difference between tea party sensationalist language and reality?

No, you're a criminal by definition.

Aren't you glad you didn't go into law? LOL

Edited by Taz, : changed worse to worst... must be losing my language part of the brain....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2011 11:31 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 05-30-2011 12:57 AM Taz has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 698 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 83 of 116 (617606)
05-30-2011 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Taz
05-30-2011 12:11 AM


Re: Really
Sorry, but this doesn't even warrant a response from me.

Except that you responded. Too bad you couldn't present an explanation about how it's ok for you to "hate loopholes" but take advantage of the loophole where you can regularly violate traffic laws but get away with it because cops are disinterested in anything but big-ticket fines.

But it does spell out specifically that enforcing traffic laws are at the discretion of LEO's.

Pretty much everything is at the discretion of "LEO's", and everything after that is at the discretion of prosecutors. Of course, they turn around and complain about jury nullification. Funny old world, isn't it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Taz, posted 05-30-2011 12:11 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Taz, posted 05-30-2011 1:05 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 2523 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 84 of 116 (617609)
05-30-2011 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by crashfrog
05-30-2011 12:57 AM


Re: Really
crashfrog writes:

Except that you responded.


My weakness.

Too bad you couldn't present an explanation about how it's ok for you to "hate loopholes" but take advantage of the loophole where you can regularly violate traffic laws but get away with it because cops are disinterested in anything but big-ticket fines.

Again, you've taken my words out of context.

I have spent a considerable number of posts trying to point out that there are clear differences between different levels of offenses. And as such, there are clear differences between levels of loopholes.

Are you seriously comparing someone getting off with murder because of technicalities and me speeding 7 over the speed limit?

How long will you continue with this childish behavior?

Pretty much everything is at the discretion of "LEO's", and everything after that is at the discretion of prosecutors. Of course, they turn around and complain about jury nullification. Funny old world, isn't it?

Um, no. The law clearly spells out what's at the discretion of the law enforcement officers and what's not.

You really do need to try to get to know some of this stuff before you decide to further sound like an expert in copery. Yeah, you're impressing a lot of people the same way that kent hovind impressed a lot of creationists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 05-30-2011 12:57 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 05-30-2011 1:19 AM Taz has taken no action

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 698 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 85 of 116 (617611)
05-30-2011 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Taz
05-30-2011 1:05 AM


Re: Really
My weakness.

And here you go again. You're not really clear on the "taking my ball and going home" concept, are you?

I have spent a considerable number of posts trying to point out that there are clear differences between different levels of offenses.

And I keep asking you, what's the level where it's ok to ignore the law? You refuse to answer, but I suspect I know the answer - the "level" is the degree to which a law is an inconvenience to you personally. Since it's pretty clear that there's no "these laws don't really count, it's ok to break them" exceptions in your big blue Book o' the Law.

Are you seriously comparing someone getting off with murder because of technicalities and me speeding 7 over the speed limit?

The law's the law, isn't it?

And in point of fact - people don't get off with murder because of "technicalities", they get off with murder because police cut corners during investigations and ignore civil rights and rules of evidence, because they consider them "technicalities" that are for the lawyers to sort out and therefore beneath them.

It's of a piece with the average policeman's general level of disdain for the actual law, when it becomes an obstacle to them being in control of the situation. That is, as I've said, the highest - perhaps only - priority of police.

Yeah, you're impressing a lot of people the same way that kent hovind impressed a lot of creationists.

Oh, feeling a little outnumbered, are we? Did you think you could just come in here and tell us how it's done and why we shouldn't let our little heads be bothered by the epidemic of police murder we're experiencing? Didn't exactly work out like you planned, did it? It's pretty clearly driving you crazy that you're no longer in control of this situation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Taz, posted 05-30-2011 1:05 AM Taz has taken no action

  
williamblake
Junior Member (Idle past 3915 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 06-02-2011


Message 86 of 116 (618192)
06-02-2011 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by crashfrog
05-24-2011 12:17 PM


Re: Be Afraid
SWAT officers who are from Arizona entered the house Jose Guerena, shooting and killing the 26 year old former Marine in front of his wife and children towards the beginning of this month, and found nothing illegal in his house. It has been decided that Guerena, who is an Iraq war veteran that went on 2 tours, didn't shoot at law enforcement officers who entered his home on a search warrant. The credibility of the search is being called into question.The proof is here: Jose Guerena did not shoot at SWAT team that killed him, newstype.com.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2011 12:17 PM crashfrog has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Taz, posted 06-02-2011 12:53 AM williamblake has taken no action

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 2523 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 87 of 116 (618193)
06-02-2011 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by williamblake
06-02-2011 12:48 AM


Re: Be Afraid
In other news, the pope is catholic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by williamblake, posted 06-02-2011 12:48 AM williamblake has taken no action

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 2657 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


(3)
Message 88 of 116 (618198)
06-02-2011 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Taz
05-29-2011 5:30 PM


Re: Really
Taz writes:

Me bringing up driving over the speed limit was to show you I'm not a perfectionist by any definition. I very much support leniency as far as violations go. But come on, you honestly can't tell the difference between an armed robber and a speeder?

Can you? You said that you would like to do away with the prison system and put all convicted criminals on an island (great idea...been done before to resounding success btw).

You made no distinction between criminals until later when you were called on your own criminal offenses.

Now you want us to make a distinction between an armed robber and a speeder, but, as a former cop, I hope you know it is not that simple. In many states someone who is going more than 20 or 30 miles over the limit is guilty of "reckless driving" which, in most cases, is a felony and can, arguably, be akin to assault (threat of violence). The only difference is the property crime (unless the reckless driving causes property damage).

Should someone who drove x amount over the speed limit not be banished to your island because it is a mere traffic violation even though the potential for actual harm is close or equal to the potential for harm during an armed robbery? (I would argue that the potential for harm through speeding is more since the victims remain abstractions for the typical careless driver and that at least twice as many people die as a result of careless/reckless driving than by firearms).

What about non-violent drug crimes (which is sort of what this thread is about, no?)

Petty theft? Larceny even (non-violent...should they be thrown to the hardened criminals on your island?)

What about someone who just didn't report a major crime to the police and is charged as an accessory after the fact?

You say that we laypeople don't understand what you are trying to convey and you now regret revealing the intricacies of the police mind to the civvies, but we understand all too well. The law is only the law when LEO's say it is, right? And that means that those who enforce the law are above it (discounting the most egregious crimes....sometimes).


"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Taz, posted 05-29-2011 5:30 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Taz, posted 06-02-2011 2:32 AM Jaderis has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 2523 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 89 of 116 (618199)
06-02-2011 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Jaderis
06-02-2011 2:20 AM


Re: Really
Jaderis writes:

You made no distinction between criminals until later when you were called on your own criminal offenses.


This is getting old. Speeding is not a criminal offense. It is spelled out very clearly in the law book.

Please read through my posts again. Driving 7 over the speed limit is not a criminal offense by any stretch of imagination.

Isn't there someone else you can go and pester? This nitpicking by law dummies such as yourself is getting old.

If you don't believe me, just contact your sheriff office or even lawyer and try to make the argument that driving 7 over is a criminal offense. Try to count how many minutes they will laugh into your face.

In many states someone who is going more than 20 or 30 miles over the limit is guilty of "reckless driving" which, in most cases, is a felony and can, arguably, be akin to assault (threat of violence).

(1) The conversation between crash and I was dealing with driving 7 over, not 20 or 30 over.

(2) It requires several very specific combination of traffic offenses for it to be labeled as reckless driving. My god, did everyone just become a damn law scholar over night?

(3) As I have been trying to explain to crashfrog all this time, which crash has refused to acknowledge (aka lie), there are varying levels of offenses and varying levels of loopholes. Crash was trying to make the point that ALL offenses are equal. Meaning going just 1 mph over the speed limit is a criminal offense. Despite me trying to convince him that going 1 over isn't a criminal offense, he's been pretending not to see my point. Please tell me you're not going to play the same silly game.

Anyway, if you're going to jump in our conversation, at least try to read what we've said so far. Since I've asked you nicely to do this, anything else you say that's not accurate I will assume to be a lie. That makes you a liar. So, please, don't try to play crash's game with me.

You say that we laypeople don't understand what you are trying to convey and you now regret revealing the intricacies of the police mind to the civvies, but we understand all too well. The law is only the law when LEO's say it is, right? And that means that those who enforce the law are above it (discounting the most egregious crimes....sometimes).

The only regret I feel is mentioning something I knew you wouldn't understand.

Please point out to me where I said the law is only the law when LEO's say so. Yes, I did say that there are certain traffic laws that are at the discretion of LEO's and these laws are spelled out very specifically. For example, technically, a cop could pull you over and give you a ticket for going over the line twice. No cop I know of will do this, and the law does specifically say that it is at the discretion of the police. Now, if a person is arrested for DUI, then among his tickets will be one for improper lane usage (going over the line twice or more).

Again, did everyone just become a liar and a law scholar? Do you feel comfortable lying like this?

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Jaderis, posted 06-02-2011 2:20 AM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Jaderis, posted 06-02-2011 5:15 AM Taz has taken no action
 Message 91 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-02-2011 10:11 AM Taz has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 2657 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 90 of 116 (618205)
06-02-2011 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Taz
06-02-2011 2:32 AM


Re: Really
Taz writes:

Jaderis writes:

You made no distinction between criminals until later when you were called on your own criminal offenses.


This is getting old. Speeding is not a criminal offense. It is spelled out very clearly in the law book.

Please read through my posts again. Driving 7 over the speed limit is not a criminal offense by any stretch of imagination.

Isn't there someone else you can go and pester? This nitpicking by law dummies such as yourself is getting old.

The original argument by you was "not over 10" mph. When does violating the law at the expense of others concern you?

If you don't believe me, just contact your sheriff office or even lawyer and try to make the argument that driving 7 over is a criminal offense. Try to count how many minutes they will laugh into your face.

Cops seem to be ok with that, but then why have a limit in the first place? Personally, I don't agree with the limit in some places, but I can see why it is there in most places. It is there to inhibit drivers from going too fast to react to potential obstacles (ie potential fatalities..."threat of harm")

Ignoring the limit and thinking that you are immune to the dangers posed by going too fast is elevating yourself above the law. Period. Yes, it is arbitrary, but so is the legal driving age.


(1) The conversation between crash and I was dealing with driving 7 over, not 20 or 30 over.

So you can say with absolute certainty that you have never gone more than 7 over the limit? Why even that?

(2) It requires several very specific combination of traffic offenses for it to be labeled as reckless driving. My god, did everyone just become a damn law scholar over night?

I'm sorry...I was only speaking about the law from the state where I grew up (Florida) and having friends convicted of it for "Any person who drives any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving."

For going more than 20 mph over the limit. Less in a construction or school zone.

How is that different than someone brandishing a knife or a gun and threatening harm and not actually hurting anybody, but being charged with assault (in FL)?

(3) As I have been trying to explain to crashfrog all this time, which crash has refused to acknowledge (aka lie), there are varying levels of offenses and varying levels of loopholes. Crash was trying to make the point that ALL offenses are equal. Meaning going just 1 mph over the speed limit is a criminal offense. Despite me trying to convince him that going 1 over isn't a criminal offense, he's been pretending not to see my point. Please tell me you're not going to play the same silly game.

You said you hated people who take advantage of loopholes, but you also failed to qualify which loopholes are acceptable and which are not.

I see you also failed to address similar questions in my last post. You didn't address my questions of levels of offense at all.

Which criminals should go to your island?

Anyway, if you're going to jump in our conversation, at least try to read what we've said so far. Since I've asked you nicely to do this, anything else you say that's not accurate I will assume to be a lie. That makes you a liar. So, please, don't try to play crash's game with me.

I wasn't aware that there were private conversations on this forum. I addressed all of your points in that post. You failed to do the same...I hope you don't consider lies of omission actual lies.

Taz writes:

Jaderis writes:

You say that we laypeople don't understand what you are trying to convey and you now regret revealing the intricacies of the police mind to the civvies, but we understand all too well. The law is only the law when LEO's say it is, right? And that means that those who enforce the law are above it (discounting the most egregious crimes....sometimes).


The only regret I feel is mentioning something I knew you wouldn't understand.

Please point out to me where I said the law is only the law when LEO's say so. Yes, I did say that there are certain traffic laws that are at the discretion of LEO's and these laws are spelled out very specifically. For example, technically, a cop could pull you over and give you a ticket for going over the line twice. No cop I know of will do this, and the law does specifically say that it is at the discretion of the police. Now, if a person is arrested for DUI, then among his tickets will be one for improper lane usage (going over the line twice or more).

Again, did everyone just become a liar and a law scholar? Do you feel comfortable lying like this?

Did you? Do you?

I said that there are some laws that LEO's leave up to themselves to enforce and I also implied that sometimes certain laws are enforced for some people that are not enforced for others (also implying my agreement with Crash that this often coincides with laws that are convenient for cops to ignore).

Do you deny this?


"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Taz, posted 06-02-2011 2:32 AM Taz has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022