While normally I'll argue that unless an officer is a former lawyer, it is damn near impossible for an officer to know the application of every law.
This isn't about some obscure legal code, it's about when he can and cannot ask for ID. Since that pertains to his job just a little bit, he deserves no slack whatsoever.
Oh, that's pure fucking genius. Do some reading on lynchings in the south where black men who were accused of kissing/whistling white women were killed to see how that bullshit would work out. How many Americans looking vaguely Arabish would have been killed in the fall of 2001? How many kids of Asian descent would have been shot at at Virginia Tech? And on the flip side, if everyone is responsible for their own defense, are the old and disabled going to be told to go fuck themselves?
I highly recommend you read the Snopes and Wikipedia entries on the guy.
Snopes has no entry for "Genarlow Wilson". The Wiki page does talk about him being found not guilty for...
After school, he went to a place where she worked and raped her.
...bullshit, if you're talking about the same party. In any case, he was never convicted of rape, just under a poorly written law that had no "Romeo and Juliet" clause.
Nope, sorry, his conviction was a complete crock. As are attempts to justify it with hearsay now, as the whole thing was caught on video and the facts of the case are not in dispute. The judgment of the prosecutor and the state government are, however. The state changed the law so this wouldn't happen again, but unconscionably did not make it retroactive.
And he walked away backwards while facing the police? What you saw was actually just a minor shoulder turn (1:42)...perhaps to turn around and walk away, or perhaps not. There's no way to know
Judging by all his succeeding actions, of course we know: he was trying to move away form the officers.
Police have the legal right to physically assault someone providing resistance.
Not when they have no basis to make an arrest, they don't.
Complete nonsense. Police officers only get to use force if they have probable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Being an obnoxious jerk is not a crime.
Balanced Budget. They're all over it, but they're nearly as big of spenders ad the GOP is. And yes, the GOP is also lying when they say they want a balanced budget.
Sorry, try again. Who was the last president to have balanced the budget? And if Florida had completed a statewide recount in 2000, we might still have one.
But whatever, you have your opinion, which apparently is that the democrats are some noble knight in shining armor here to save the country
Straw man. I and many other democrats were beyond pissed that the Democrats in Congressed caved on the FISA bill this summer, for example. I was so pissed at Webb in particular that I asked for a refund of my campaign contribution along with his resignation. However, 27 Democrats voted against it, compared to zero Republicans. The Democratic party has a lot to improve on, but they aren't even on the same planet of incompetence and corruption that the GOP dwells on.
Which is made up of friends, family members and neighbors. Not random strangers far from your home.
They do? Where do they get the money?
From their parents. Or by working. The first obviously means the parents have given permission to buy stuff, and the second implies at least some level of responsibility, and that their parents have allowed them to have a job - and to spend the money from said job. Why should a store employee be able to decide how this money is spent, based on their personal, arbitrary standards?
Not. What would it take to prove that to you? My 512-area-code home phone number? My receipt from buying The Audacity of Hope? Contact info for friends who can vouch for my social and political leanings?
I called you a liar because endorsing third parties that make arbitrary moral judgments on others is completely anti-ethical to everything liberal hippies stand for. If only because they wont always make decisions you agree with - what if the clerk at a B&N decides that Hope is too subversive a book for a teenager to read, and instead refers your offspring to a nice hardcover copy of Treason?
But back to GameStop. If a kid buys and a game and the parent decides it is inappropriate or will be too much of a distraction, the parent can take the game away or keep it until their child accomplishes whatever the child needs to accomplish. But that is the call of the parent, not the store manager. His was a ham fisted approach to a problem that can be solved with five minutes of responsible parenting.
Now, give it up before I have my cousins in Dallas come over to your place in Austin, repo your copy of Hope, and instead leave you with Deliver Us from Evil : Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism by Sean Hannity.:-)
Let's remember that, for all the anti-war rhetoric, the Democrats know just as well as anyone that pulling out now, even if politically possible (which I don't think it is, public sentiment notwithstanding) would be disasterous.
Have you been in a coma for the last four years? Iraq is a disaster, and has been for a long time. We either need to pull out, or be serious about stabilizing the country. Which will take upwards of 500,000 troops.
Staying in as we are does nothing to provide the necessary stability (Bush's splurge has failed by his own benchmarks), it just makes our troops stay in a meat grinder while bankrupting our country.
Sure. Same for guys captured after shooting at US troops in Iraq. That's fine--I don't care what gets done to them.
The problem with this attitude is that we don't get to have one set of rules for ourselves and a higher standard for everyone else, especially when we're crowing about fighting tyrants and spreading freedom. For example, the U.S. military routinely strikes "military and economic targets" during military actions. What were the Pentagon and the WTC? Military and economic targets. The same applies to torture and holding prisoners indefinitely without trial.
it's people like him that put bipartisanship and "crossing party lines" over the importance of doing the right thing. Or, as someone once said: bipartisanship is great if you're helping an old lady across the street. Bipartisanship is not great if you mug the old lady for her wallet instead.
Good old two-party system; the Dems are so starved for a majority that they're happy to have him caucus with them.
Because many of them were jackasses and supported Lieberman after the voters picked Lamont in the primary. And were repaid with more knives in the back and threats to switch parties if he didn't get his way.
Specter? He's the worst of the Republicans who stand up and loudly criticize the right wing and then quietly vote to hand them whatever they want. I wont cry if the door doesn't hit his ass on the way out.
The gap between the Democrats and the Republicans are not so great that the Democrats can really afford to battle too much in this way
Sure it is. The measures they are blocking have large majorities of support from the American public.
Besides, GWB has made it clear that anything that he finds too noxious is going to get vetoed
So make him veto it. Make the Republicans in the Senate filibuster the bill. Doing so will assign complete ownership of the continuing Iraq clusterfuck to the Republican party. But continuing as they are, the Democrats in Congress are allowing the Republicans to play the "I've always criticized the Administration on the war in Iraq" game while voting to continue the war.
That's why their actions don't make any sense. If the Democrats in Congress were acting on principle, they'd force the issue. If they were acting out of shallow political self-interest, they'd still pin the war on the Republicans and force the GOP into a generation of electoral irrelevancy.
and there's no way the Democrats can overcome that
Sure they can, and they could have done it when they were in the minority as well. Congress has the power of the purse, and it takes 41 votes to stop a bill in the Senate. No funding, no war.
Slashdot Mirror
While normally I'll argue that unless an officer is a former lawyer, it is damn near impossible for an officer to know the application of every law.
This isn't about some obscure legal code, it's about when he can and cannot ask for ID. Since that pertains to his job just a little bit, he deserves no slack whatsoever.
So, who's telling the truth?
Do you have a habit of asking questions with obvious answers?
Oh, that's pure fucking genius. Do some reading on lynchings in the south where black men who were accused of kissing/whistling white women were killed to see how that bullshit would work out. How many Americans looking vaguely Arabish would have been killed in the fall of 2001? How many kids of Asian descent would have been shot at at Virginia Tech? And on the flip side, if everyone is responsible for their own defense, are the old and disabled going to be told to go fuck themselves?
I always found it amazing how much conservatives hate an organization dedicated to protecting your constitutional rights.
Snopes has no entry for "Genarlow Wilson". The Wiki page does talk about him being found not guilty for...
After school, he went to a place where she worked and raped her.
...bullshit, if you're talking about the same party. In any case, he was never convicted of rape, just under a poorly written law that had no "Romeo and Juliet" clause.
Nope, sorry, his conviction was a complete crock. As are attempts to justify it with hearsay now, as the whole thing was caught on video and the facts of the case are not in dispute. The judgment of the prosecutor and the state government are, however. The state changed the law so this wouldn't happen again, but unconscionably did not make it retroactive.
He was already being arrested for numerous offenses at that time
Being an ass is not a crime. The cops had zero justification for the use of force.
Police are taught (for their, and the general public's own safety) to subdue a person once they physically resist.
They're also taught to make arrests only when they have probable cause. These cops didn't.
you dont get to tell the police the terms of your arrest
And cops don't get to arrest people without probable cause. These cops did not have probable cause.
And he walked away backwards while facing the police? What you saw was actually just a minor shoulder turn (1:42)...perhaps to turn around and walk away, or perhaps not. There's no way to know
Judging by all his succeeding actions, of course we know: he was trying to move away form the officers.
Police have the legal right to physically assault someone providing resistance.
Not when they have no basis to make an arrest, they don't.
The choice to make the officers use force was his own.
Um, no. That was made by the cops when two of them grabbed his arm and started to haul him out.
changes things, eh?
Not in the slightest. Cops don't get to tase people for non-compliance.
The police action was completely justified.
Complete nonsense. Police officers only get to use force if they have probable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Being an obnoxious jerk is not a crime.
You say talk about these non-utility monopolies but you can't even fucking name one.
All of them means all of them. Seriously, just how stupid are you?
Balanced Budget. They're all over it, but they're nearly as big of spenders ad the GOP is. And yes, the GOP is also lying when they say they want a balanced budget.
Sorry, try again. Who was the last president to have balanced the budget? And if Florida had completed a statewide recount in 2000, we might still have one.
But whatever, you have your opinion, which apparently is that the democrats are some noble knight in shining armor here to save the country
Straw man. I and many other democrats were beyond pissed that the Democrats in Congressed caved on the FISA bill this summer, for example. I was so pissed at Webb in particular that I asked for a refund of my campaign contribution along with his resignation. However, 27 Democrats voted against it, compared to zero Republicans. The Democratic party has a lot to improve on, but they aren't even on the same planet of incompetence and corruption that the GOP dwells on.
Hey -- it takes a village.
:-)
Which is made up of friends, family members and neighbors. Not random strangers far from your home.
They do? Where do they get the money?
From their parents. Or by working. The first obviously means the parents have given permission to buy stuff, and the second implies at least some level of responsibility, and that their parents have allowed them to have a job - and to spend the money from said job. Why should a store employee be able to decide how this money is spent, based on their personal, arbitrary standards?
Not. What would it take to prove that to you? My 512-area-code home phone number? My receipt from buying The Audacity of Hope? Contact info for friends who can vouch for my social and political leanings?
I called you a liar because endorsing third parties that make arbitrary moral judgments on others is completely anti-ethical to everything liberal hippies stand for. If only because they wont always make decisions you agree with - what if the clerk at a B&N decides that Hope is too subversive a book for a teenager to read, and instead refers your offspring to a nice hardcover copy of Treason?
But back to GameStop. If a kid buys and a game and the parent decides it is inappropriate or will be too much of a distraction, the parent can take the game away or keep it until their child accomplishes whatever the child needs to accomplish. But that is the call of the parent, not the store manager. His was a ham fisted approach to a problem that can be solved with five minutes of responsible parenting.
Now, give it up before I have my cousins in Dallas come over to your place in Austin, repo your copy of Hope, and instead leave you with Deliver Us from Evil : Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism by Sean Hannity.
Let's remember that, for all the anti-war rhetoric, the Democrats know just as well as anyone that pulling out now, even if politically possible (which I don't think it is, public sentiment notwithstanding) would be disasterous.
Have you been in a coma for the last four years? Iraq is a disaster, and has been for a long time. We either need to pull out, or be serious about stabilizing the country. Which will take upwards of 500,000 troops.
Staying in as we are does nothing to provide the necessary stability (Bush's splurge has failed by his own benchmarks), it just makes our troops stay in a meat grinder while bankrupting our country.
Sure. Same for guys captured after shooting at US troops in Iraq. That's fine--I don't care what gets done to them.
The problem with this attitude is that we don't get to have one set of rules for ourselves and a higher standard for everyone else, especially when we're crowing about fighting tyrants and spreading freedom. For example, the U.S. military routinely strikes "military and economic targets" during military actions. What were the Pentagon and the WTC? Military and economic targets. The same applies to torture and holding prisoners indefinitely without trial.
Ok, where in the Constitution does it say that it's limitations on federal power only apply to domestic actions.
it's people like him that put bipartisanship and "crossing party lines" over the importance of doing the right thing. Or, as someone once said: bipartisanship is great if you're helping an old lady across the street. Bipartisanship is not great if you mug the old lady for her wallet instead.
More appropriately, you're either with the right-wing or you are against them.
Good old two-party system; the Dems are so starved for a majority that they're happy to have him caucus with them.
Because many of them were jackasses and supported Lieberman after the voters picked Lamont in the primary. And were repaid with more knives in the back and threats to switch parties if he didn't get his way.
Specter? He's the worst of the Republicans who stand up and loudly criticize the right wing and then quietly vote to hand them whatever they want. I wont cry if the door doesn't hit his ass on the way out.
The gap between the Democrats and the Republicans are not so great that the Democrats can really afford to battle too much in this way
Sure it is. The measures they are blocking have large majorities of support from the American public.
Besides, GWB has made it clear that anything that he finds too noxious is going to get vetoed
So make him veto it. Make the Republicans in the Senate filibuster the bill. Doing so will assign complete ownership of the continuing Iraq clusterfuck to the Republican party. But continuing as they are, the Democrats in Congress are allowing the Republicans to play the "I've always criticized the Administration on the war in Iraq" game while voting to continue the war.
That's why their actions don't make any sense. If the Democrats in Congress were acting on principle, they'd force the issue. If they were acting out of shallow political self-interest, they'd still pin the war on the Republicans and force the GOP into a generation of electoral irrelevancy.
and there's no way the Democrats can overcome that
Sure they can, and they could have done it when they were in the minority as well. Congress has the power of the purse, and it takes 41 votes to stop a bill in the Senate. No funding, no war.
No, most people who talk about smaller government really do want a smaller Federal government.
No, that's really just a marketing slogan. What they want is an end to social spending and oversight that interfere in profit by any means necessary.
Funny how people forget things like the US military being first on the scene after the Tsunami hit.
You don't need the largest military in the world to offer disaster relief. Hugo Chavez, for example, offered help to Katrina victims.
Dude, you're wasting your time. Either dumbass is trolling, or he's drinking the right wing Kool-Aid.