Yes, it's HORRIBLE when people know the law, and know right from wrong, and expect it of their officials. Terrible to not be a blind ignorant piece of crap, isn't it? Oh wait, why am I asking you?
Yes, it's HORRIBLE when people know the law, and know right from wrong, and expect it of their officials. Terrible to not be a blind ignorant piece of crap, isn't it? Oh wait, why am I asking you?
That would be my question to you as well. How do you know he's a "great cop", as you stated above? He may be a slacker piece of garbage cop.
In any case, he needs to be educated, slapped around a bit, preferably with a copy of the CONSTITUTION!
MrDudeMan
Lifer
- Jan 15, 2001
- 15,069
- 94
- 91
you are such a tool. how do you ever expect anyone to take you seriously when you act like a 5 year old in every post? try it...just once...make a post and actually try to sound intelligent without belittling someone. i dont think you can.
also, you are seriously full of it if you think everyone is predisposed to act a certain way. you are massively affected by your surroundings. maybe you missed nature vs. nurture? or did you even go to college? its hard to tell based on your social and communication skills (read: you lack the ability to convey your ideas without putting someone down).
and dont quote me and call my a hypocrit...i talk on here all the time without name calling. answer the questions, try not to be an idiot. its that easy.
It's really cool when we are behind a car in traffic and my 5 year old says F... U...C...K..... Fvck? Daddy what does fvck mean? Or when I walk down the street with her and a car rolls by bumping "yo mutha fvckin ho I gonna beat yo ass." I just love that. I feel that if you have the "right" to force crap at my kids that I feel is wrong, then I should have the right to ram my boot in your ass!
How do the actions of one single cop come to represent an entire movement across the country (ie.-religious fanaticism or whatever the hell term conjur uses)? That's what I want to know. You people cue off of a single instance of something and expand it to fit the entire spectrum of actions taken by the mentioned group. That smacks of ignorance and flat out fanaticism in my view.
As to some of the other comments, it sounds to me like the cop is learning a hard lesson. While the sticker may not be in the best of tastes and may be socially reprehensible to some, I don't see it as being "illegal" in any way. Local ordanance not withstanding and local decency laws not existing, I don't see how he has a leg to stand on. As far as the blanket "Constitution trumps local law always," that's a load of bull$hit. Local laws can exist which will not necessarily fall in line with the word of the Constitution and therefore are open to interpretation as a result. This is what the court system exists for, to debate and argue such instances. Our nation was setup so that the federal government could NOT dictate the actions of each state, however, each state should also fall in line with the laws set forth by the Congress. It's not as cut and dry as most of you think it is. If local ordanance says she's wrong, then it's her responsibility to take the city to court and fight as such.
As to some of the other comments, it sounds to me like the cop is learning a hard lesson. While the sticker may not be in the best of tastes and may be socially reprehensible to some, I don't see it as being "illegal" in any way. Local ordanance not withstanding and local decency laws not existing, I don't see how he has a leg to stand on. As far as the blanket "Constitution trumps local law always," that's a load of bull$hit. Local laws can exist which will not necessarily fall in line with the word of the Constitution and therefore are open to interpretation as a result. This is what the court system exists for, to debate and argue such instances. Our nation was setup so that the federal government could NOT dictate the actions of each state, however, each state should also fall in line with the laws set forth by the Congress. It's not as cut and dry as most of you think it is. If local ordanance says she's wrong, then it's her responsibility to take the city to court and fight as such.
How do the actions of one single cop come to represent an entire movement across the country?
Hehehehehe, funny.
It's not one single incident happening across the Country but of course you don't see that. :roll:
I call em like I see em. I make many posts of a purely informative nature, not my issue if you haven't read them. Quite frankly, I wasn't placed on this earth for your approval.
I'm not getting into an intellect/education debate again, I've been in too many and the bottom line is I know EXACTLY where I fall in those categories thanks to a lifetime of testing and participation. If you care so much about it, come on over and I'll give you a copy of my last Wechsler and my tanscripts, otherwise, go pi$$ up a rope.
Unfortunatley... that is not the case. A common city ordenance can trump the constitution in some cases. There s a suburb of Chicago that successfully outlawed handguns despite "The right to bear arms" portion of the constitution.
There is also a law in Michigan that prohibits the use of profanith around children, despite the first amendment.
Then you explain that it is the kind of word that bad people use, and people in your family don't
make use of such language.
No, you don't have the right to answer verbal offences with physical ones. You do have the right
to protest the use of terms you find offensive. You have the right to post positive messages of
your own. You have the right to ask other people to refrain from using such speech (and
they have the right to either agree or refuse. And you have the right to look the other way.
What you do not have is the right to escalate the offense with one of your own.
PrinceofWands is correct that the police officer in question also escalated the offense with his own, and
thereby stepped beyond his required boundaries. What PoW did not also point out was that even if the
cop did not know the exact laws in this instance (and was not in a position to call for backup to help
clarify it), he does know the difference between a civil dispute, a traffic infraction, and a felony crime.
For the situation in question, even if he was offended by the sticker too, should have (if illegal) resulted
in nothing more than a ticket and fine if the lady had refused to remove or cover the sticker.
Threatening someone with arrest and a restraining order from a location that was not involved
in the incident carried the situation far higher than it needed to go for lawful resolution.
Iahova, I beleive the ordinance you mention passed in Chicago because they were able to show
a clear link and threat to the community from the proliferation of handguns and the commision of
violent crimes. And noone else has yet offered sufficient challenge to it in the courts.
That law also (probably) does not violate the 2nd Amendment, because it only placed the ban on handguns, not on ownership of other weapons to protect oneself... (again, it might require a court
challenge to clarify that).
But to get back to topic, the same cannot be said for a ban on offensive speech. Since there is
no overwhelming evidence of threat to life and limb from the overuse of the F word.
Pohemi
Lifer
- Oct 2, 2004
- 10,947
- 17,118
- 146
My newest bumper sticker:
Vote for Cthulu...President 2004! Why Settle for the Lesser Evil?
Hehe...just a little humor to difuse the flaming (doubt it'll work :roll: )
BTW, in my opinion the officer in question was wrong, but then again I don't know local law in CO where this happened...
Vote for Cthulu...President 2004! Why Settle for the Lesser Evil?
Hehe...just a little humor to difuse the flaming (doubt it'll work :roll: )
BTW, in my opinion the officer in question was wrong, but then again I don't know local law in CO where this happened...
OK then I will kindly walk up to him and saw, can you turn yo shizzle down my awesome dude! Then when he jumps in my face, I can slam him. Or maybe I will blast some punk white supremacy music, then we will see how fast I get told to turn it off because it promotes violence and is hate speach.
This is also an issue of respect. I know how to talk to my daughter about all the crap I see in the world. But the fact that people have an utter lack of respect makes me angry, but I guess we all have to be tolerant, and let people do what they want. Well until it is something that you dont like.
It is an artistic expression of my anger towards another person and should be looked upon with tolerance.
I have been thinking about this for a bit and have a question. How many of you who find nothing at all wrong with the F word being publically displayed suport taking the word God out of the pledge because it may be offensive to someone?
Good point...but be sure to differentiate between 'offensive to someone' and 'violation of the constitution with the possibility of further government decay' when you talk about reasons.
I don't believe in the current pledge, but not because it's offensive (although it is that too).
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
You may be able to argue that the pledge isn't a law, but it's ABSOLUTELY AND TOTALLY opposed to the original intent of the founders. If they'd wanted god in government they could easily have put him there...but you'll not find one reference, not in the constituion, not in our original money, nor in our original pledge. You'll find written records of them arguing against the government in any way involving itself in religious affairs, including inclusion of religious idolotry or writing in it's official documents. It was considered, and refused.
They expected religious men to hold office, but they did NOT want religion within the federal structure of the government itself. I have yet to ever see this effectively argued by any credible source.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter