Ya think notice the number of insightful mods, informative mods, etc. Yet, everytime I post anywhere on slashdot about anything remotely political - it's flamebait or troll.
Yesterday, I corrected a poster who claimed that This site contained no HTML formatted articles that the public could access or discuss - he stated it only was an ad for a book on the site. He got a +4 informative, I got a -1 Troll for pointing out that there were literally more than 100 articles on that site freely available, how this many techno-savvy, above average intelligence memebers of our happy little community can be that biased is beyond me. To support a blatent lie, and to mod the rebuttle showing facts as trolling is shameful.
Yes, otherwise he would not have been allowed to fly solo missions in one of the most expensive aircraft of it's time.
You see, flying a supersonic fighter aircraft, and being able to accurately drop ordinace from said aircraft, and be capable of low level flight required to be considered fully qualified on it takes a bit more training time that learning how to do combat patrol on a glorified bass boat.
Ok, he was AWOL - never served a day supposedly from many of the proponents of the AWOL theory... explain to me why he was fully qualified and allowed to fly solo missions in one of the most expensive jet fighters of it's age?
I am prior AF, I know the amount of training that pilots are required to undergo - if he never did his duty, how did he become qualified to fly the aircraft?
Having plenty of documentation available from my own military records - allow me to point out that the standard appearance of "TH" is not superscript even in today's word processor age, but capitals - if this were "real" it should have been typed "187TH" something I used to hate dealing with before I learned my way around Word's autocorrect features.
And another thing while I'm on it, gettting out some of the older paperwork while previewing my post - I notice that rarely is "TH" added, I do see it in a few memoranda I have still, but it is always capitalized, or assumed.
For instance I served in the 35th Maintenance Squadron, 35th Logistics Group, 35th Fighter Wing, MIsawa, Airbase, Japan - almost every document from there is formally typed:
35 MXS, 35 LG, 35 FW, MISAWA, AB, JAPAN.
Looks fishy as hell to me considering it's a lot easier to tack on "th" in a Word Processor compared to an old gov't issue Typewriter.
No, I did it for him - oh I'm sorry, am I guess I being a regular poster here on/. must have missed the part where I'm allowed to JOIN in the discussion here?
But, I'll play along I have Karma to burn and my reasoned responses have so far been modded flamebait (WTF MODS!!!) because I'm not falling in line with the hivemind - but here goes:
How about here which you could have found by clicking on the parent link of your own posts a few times.
Ok, here he made the assumption (a big one considering the RTFA statements so common here) that you would actually read the article where it points out the 4 different answers to the question of which no 3 can be true if one is also true - meaning all or 3 are lies. You are still refusing to accept this even though it has been spelled out for you many times.
Now, I chose to reply to your comments, if you don't like that - don't read my replies, or accept the fact that you are on a public forum full of rather intelligent readers and commentors who may or may not choose to reply to your public comments. Welcome to/., some of us think here, and some of come here because we enjoy being able to discuss the issues addressed.
His "MANTRA" has been "I gave you an informative link that showed specifically one instance where Kerry has lied" it was in direct response to this post where WE were asked as a group "I'm curious what Kerry lied about..." and was provided as a singluar example. For you to not accept the fact that his point was made makes you appear stubborn and foolish. He has no "MANTRA" he plainly replied to a question with an informative answer (modded TROLL - thanks again MODS - I love the homogony you are going for, it makes things so... so... uhh... bland.) that you didn't like hearing.
YES, I am REACTING to your comment and processed it quite easily, I felt it was misinformation, and deregotory to the other poster, and no matter how much of a "Democratic" majority of slashdot members (I was recently modded a troll because I pointed out 5 articles on an anti-Michael Moore site in response to a +5 Informative post saying that nothing but a book ad existed at a given site, and that no articles were available in HTML format, a blatent lie corrected by my "Trolling" post.) I am welcome to join, comment, and reply to any post on/. I feel like, and I did in fact present facts to you, prove them to not be facts and I'll accept your arguement that I am misguided in thinking I am presenting a Fact to you.
[rant]MOD ME DOWN BABY - IF YOU CAN'T BLUDGEON THEM INTO JOINING YOU, YOU CAN AT LEAST CENSOR AND SILENCE THEM SO IT LOOKS LIKE YOUR OPINION IS THE ONLY ONE THAT EXISTS![/rant]
How in God's name is this flamebait? It is factual, informational response - because it doesn't help John Kerry it's flamebait?! Wake up mods! More than one point of view is allowed on/.
I gave you specific examples and you must remember that depending on your preferences here at/. you may or may not be seeing the entire discussion.
His poker chip example was excellent at showing that you cannot give differing answers to the same black or white questions without one of the answers being a lie. This is something you are not processing.
Process this Khasim - when Kerry has been asked "Did you throw away your medals?" he has given at least 4 differing answers to the question that could not be true if any of the others are true - that means that at least three of the responses are lies.
So what did he lie about? He lied about throwing away his medals. Did he throw them away or not - we will likely never know because of his choice to not be completely factual about this important moment for him.
Your original post I replied to stated: "Since you are unable to clearly specify WHAT LIE HE TOLD,"
So I took the time to explain for you "WHAT LIE HE TOLD." He lied about the medals being thrown.
You continued with your claims of those in disagreement with your views are only capable of repeating a MANTRA: "...you cannot provide any FACTS for what you believe."
Well, I provided the facts several times - either he told the truth in all four differing responses or he lied in three, since none of the responses can exist without making the other three false - he lied. This is called a Fact, sorry if you don't like its existance, but it is a Fact, not a point of discussion.
As for me not being able to process the DISCUSSION, I directly responded to YOUR comment - I pointed out exactly where the lie is - something you claim the Parent poster could not do even though he clearly had, and provided factual proof of its existance - logic dictates that two differing responses to the question could not both be true because they conflict with each other.
There is nothing to debate here, it has nothing to do with who I (or you for that matter) support in the election (trust me I won't be voting for Bush, Nader, or Kerry,) it has nothing to do with discussion, it is a statement of FACTS. Something you claimed were not being provided. I have processed the information for you, and did not repeat a mantra - rather I stated the logical fact that a yes and no answer to the this question cannot coexist meaning one of those answers is a lie. You are the one repeating a mantra and refusing to process the information being handed out freely.
Are you a fool Khasim??? He plainly points out two specific statements by Kerry that could not both be true - that means he did lie at some point about throwing the medals away.
Now I wasn't there, so I don't know which one is a lie and which one is a truth, but two opposite responses to the same question means that one of those if a lie.
LIE: n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
Here is a FACT for you to claim I am not providing - You cannot answer both yes and no to the question "Did you throw your medals away?" without either the yes or the no being a lie.
He told you specifically what lie he told. I have defined lie. He did not tell you what "TRUTH" he told because that is in question because of the "Lies" he has told - this doesn't mean that a lie was not told. Sorry if this bruises your fragile little views.
Here's another little lie for you:
From the congressional record in 1986 John Kerry being quoted here: "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."
He has repeated this claim at least 8 times on public record since a letter to the Boston Herald in 1979. So, is it true? Not now, according to Kerry - he now says he was never in Cambodia... hmmmm.
Unfortunately the actual Libertarian Party is run by complete nutjobs, leaving us small-l libertarians/classical liberals/South Park Republicans with no home.
Then fix it, if you agree with the basic platforms, but think some of the wack-jobs are too powerful, get involved and help negate the wack-jobbery - I have found in less than a year of being involved with libertarians, that it is fairly easy to have an impact on this group of individuals that are for the most part willing to listen to all involved parties - unlike the major parties where unless you are ponying up millions in donations, your opinion means nothing.
Am I the only one that remembers that the music the ewoks are playing at the end of ROTJ (original) was the theme song to "Sesame Street"? I'd love to know if that was credited by the way. Sure there are no english lyrics, but I can remember watching the film in the theater and singing along in my head with the tune.
Exactly - it's only a movie that redefined special effects, and by lucas choosing to bar the future generations of artisans who do this sort of thing from seeing their roots would be like the Charlie Chaplin being able to prevent future film makers from being able to learn anything from his work.
It's a slap in the face of everyone who worked on a movie that was revolutionary for it's time to have Lucas, who was only one of hundreds of people involved in the creation of the film(s) legacy to claim "They're work was shit so I will do all in my power to make sure future generations cannot lay eyes upon it" - release both you swollen headed egomaniac.
I'm sure I want to receive my education from a school that can't learn to deal with changes in technology. I mean if they are incapable of dealing with something this simple, and just choose to ban use, why would I think they take the easy way out with other tough questions?
YEAH! and... well, uh no it's not a racist statement to assume that all african-americans will vote with the party that most supports welfare and food stamps. Oh wait, did I just see the flaw in your armor?
How is voting my conscience throwing away my vote? Independants and third parties have won many offices in our nation, if I strongly disagree with the two major party candidates, and feel they are unfit to lead, and strongly agree with a third party candidate who is on the ballot - it is my civic duty and moral obligation to vote for the individual I feel best qualified to take the post.
"No, he is interfering with a reasonable search and seizure."
From the video:
Q: "Why do you need to see my license?"
A: "Because I'm investingating an investigation."
Uhh, ok, so it becomes reasonable search and seizure because the officer wants it to be considered reasonable? The easiest way to lose our constitutional rights is to not exercise them, demanding the reason that the officer feels probable cause while not placing the officer, or other citizens in danger is just as reasonable if not more. If the officer cannot justify his reasoning, then he does not have probable cause and is therefore not conducting a reasonable search and seizure.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on Mr. Hibel stating something to the effect of "If you want to see my license, you will have to arrest me, here is my hands place the cuffs on as I am willing to cooperate fully and peacefully with you even if I have an aggitated tone of voice and then you can procure my license yourself, but at the risk of being guilty of false arrest." is not an inappropriate action.
"If that's correct, then how do you explain the discrepancy between reports?"
The 911 tape was used in the court case against Hibel's daughter who was charged with assault on an officer for opening her car door - watch the video she opens the door slowly only to have it literally slammed into her by an officer more than twice her size, knocking her completely off balance, who then immediately reopens the door and roughly drags her out by the wrist and throws her to the ground. The only person assaulted was her. The judge agreed - and threw the case against her out of court. The original call did state that the passenger (The daughter) was assaulting the driver (Mr. Hibel) but was relayed by the dispatcher incorrectly to the responding units.
"I say his behavior is entirely consistent with an intoxicated suspect."
Well, I guess you watch too much COPS or have never done any law enforcement - something I have done, and have the training to do, behavior is but one aspect officers use to determine if a suspect is under the influence - the primary aspect is smell, cooridnation, and the reactions of a suspects eye movement and speech. None of these are the case with Mr. Hibel, and the officer never even suspected him of having been drinking or under the influence.
"If one of these people immediately becomes argumentative or even puts his or her hands out of view, they're going in handcuffs."
It is not a crime to be argumentative, and Mr. Hibel immediately showed the officer his empty hands, offered himself for search, and tried to discuss the situation with the deputy calmly. The deputy's over zealous demands for ID while failing to assess the situation in front of him escalated things into the argumentative tone. Each time the officer stated that if Mr. Hibel did not comply with his request for ID he would arrest Mr. Hibel, he offered his empty palms in a slow controlled manner to be cuffed and stated plainly that if the officer felt the need to arrest him he would cooperate fully. This is the reason that he was not charged with resisting arrest. Perhaps you should take the time to watch the video at the site again or for the first time before you continue to support the loss of the fourth ammendment.
By the way, even though we are obviously on opposite sides of this fence, it's refreshing to have an actual discussion enjoying the first ammendment without it degrading into nonsense.
Ok, I understand that saying bad things like referring to Michael Moore as "Mickey Mou... err Moore" might piss off those that just love the fat jovial liar - but defending a post from a blantent lie (the site you linked contained nothing but a book ad) with factual information is a troll since when.
This is why some people complain about the moderation system here. If you want me to be informative, how about these links:
Not a book ad Not a book ad Not a book ad I could continue this for literally hundreds of HTML formatted documents that GoodNicsTken claimed didn't exist on the site. I love how some moderators feel to ignore the guidelines and use personal objectives to sway the readability of the comments on the site.
Some people have an abrasive personality. Yes, he is being argumentative, but beligerent, no he is standing up for his constitutional right to be secure in his person, papers, and effects.
The peace officer has a duty to protect and serve. This means we get over our little "I have a f'n badge and power" trip and when asked a direct question from an individual, we address the question honestly and fairly. Something that annoys me is that officers feel a need to lie repeatedly in their investigations, which if I remember correctly is fraud.
"Why do you need to see my license?"
The officer immediately could have difused the situation by honestly saying "Because I have recieved a complaint that an individual matching your description was just involved in an assault on an individual matching the description of the passenger in your vehicle, and I need to - for my safety, verify who I am dealing with, and I have probable cause to request this." or he could have used the old, "What's your name sir?" and then checked on the passenger who, based upon the report being investigated had just been assaulted - which could have helped the situation tremendously.
Trust me, Deputy Doogooder has had plenty of training in this technique. You don't "agg-on" an obviously pissed off person, you do your best to calm the situation. Also, the deputy is the one involved here that is supposed to be a professional at handling this and worse situations. Hibel is just a "dumb hick."
Now, let's look at why Mr. Hibel comes across as pissed off and angry. Why is he standing beside his truck when the officer pulls up - he has just spent a few hours hunting down his minor daughter who, against his wishes, has snuck out of the house to go out on a date with a young man several years older than her that he has forbidden her from dating. When he finds his daughter with the boy, he orders her to return home with him, and I'm sure has been in a heated discussion with him during the long drive home. The daughter has gotten so angry that she has assaulted Hibel, this is what prompted the 911 call (the 911 dispatcher is too stupid to correctly identify what she is plainly told - that a passenger was assaulting a driver.)
Mr. Hibel has the presence of mind to pull over, step out of the vehicle and try to calm down for a few minutes by smoking a cigarette. Most, belligerent argumentative individuals would not have been intelligent enough to do what Mr. Hibel was doing, they would have lost their temper. If the officer had done his f'n job, he would have investigated the situation, and then tried to play the "wants and warrents" card - which is exactly what he was doing here, trying to boost arrest rates without doing any "work" and maybe being a reasonable adult, possibly with children of his own, understood Mr. Hibels' obviously aggitated state.
By the way, some people don't have to be "drunk" to come across as angry. You'd make a good officer in this department with your rush to judgement while ignoring all facts in front of your face.
That's because there are too many f'n laws - many in conflict with prior laws, many repeating the same things passed prior.
You know in the early 90s there was a move to get a law passed that required the congress to show what section of the Constitution gave them the authority to pass the new law.
Sen. John Glenn stated something to the effect of "If we did this, we couldn't pass so many laws.".... hmmmmm.... maybe that's the point.
It appears from the video that Dudley is rather intoxicated.
You judgemental prick. I do believe it was clear that he was driving, and was not intoxicated - the officers certainly would have checked for intoxication, and have not ever accused Dudley Hibel with drinking or public intoxication.
You see someone with an accent and a cowboy hat and assume he's a drunk. How fucking wonderful is that asstard.
Excuse me GoodNicsTken - the site linked may sell books, but if you dig through the content, however crushing to your view of Mickey Mou... err Moore, it may be, you'll see that there is plenty of information in HTML documents for you to read, the book probably makes it easier for some "non-geeks" to get through it.
WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY! Repeat after me - The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic based on private property and individual rights. The founders of our nation detested "Democracy" calling it a "tyranny of the majority."
Yeah, like Call of Duty (a game of the year winner) and one of the bigger WWII game sellers - it was only about the US, oh - and the Brits, and the Russsians...
And the fact that the majority of developers happen to be in the USA has nothing to do with this I'm sure.
Sorry, my sarcasm knob is stuck at 10 this morning.
Slashdot Mirror
Ya think notice the number of insightful mods, informative mods, etc. Yet, everytime I post anywhere on slashdot about anything remotely political - it's flamebait or troll.
Yesterday, I corrected a poster who claimed that This site contained no HTML formatted articles that the public could access or discuss - he stated it only was an ad for a book on the site. He got a +4 informative, I got a -1 Troll for pointing out that there were literally more than 100 articles on that site freely available, how this many techno-savvy, above average intelligence memebers of our happy little community can be that biased is beyond me. To support a blatent lie, and to mod the rebuttle showing facts as trolling is shameful.
Yes, otherwise he would not have been allowed to fly solo missions in one of the most expensive aircraft of it's time.
You see, flying a supersonic fighter aircraft, and being able to accurately drop ordinace from said aircraft, and be capable of low level flight required to be considered fully qualified on it takes a bit more training time that learning how to do combat patrol on a glorified bass boat.
Ok, he was AWOL - never served a day supposedly from many of the proponents of the AWOL theory... explain to me why he was fully qualified and allowed to fly solo missions in one of the most expensive jet fighters of it's age?
I am prior AF, I know the amount of training that pilots are required to undergo - if he never did his duty, how did he become qualified to fly the aircraft?
Having plenty of documentation available from my own military records - allow me to point out that the standard appearance of "TH" is not superscript even in today's word processor age, but capitals - if this were "real" it should have been typed "187TH" something I used to hate dealing with before I learned my way around Word's autocorrect features.
And another thing while I'm on it, gettting out some of the older paperwork while previewing my post - I notice that rarely is "TH" added, I do see it in a few memoranda I have still, but it is always capitalized, or assumed.
For instance I served in the 35th Maintenance Squadron, 35th Logistics Group, 35th Fighter Wing, MIsawa, Airbase, Japan - almost every document from there is formally typed:
35 MXS, 35 LG, 35 FW, MISAWA, AB, JAPAN.
Looks fishy as hell to me considering it's a lot easier to tack on "th" in a Word Processor compared to an old gov't issue Typewriter.
Why do you think that Bush and Kerry are now becoming so adamant against 527s? Just wanted to back up your valid comments - great post!
No, I did it for him - oh I'm sorry, am I guess I being a regular poster here on /. must have missed the part where I'm allowed to JOIN in the discussion here?
But, I'll play along I have Karma to burn and my reasoned responses have so far been modded flamebait (WTF MODS!!!) because I'm not falling in line with the hivemind - but here goes:
How about here which you could have found by clicking on the parent link of your own posts a few times.
Ok, here he made the assumption (a big one considering the RTFA statements so common here) that you would actually read the article where it points out the 4 different answers to the question of which no 3 can be true if one is also true - meaning all or 3 are lies. You are still refusing to accept this even though it has been spelled out for you many times.
Now, I chose to reply to your comments, if you don't like that - don't read my replies, or accept the fact that you are on a public forum full of rather intelligent readers and commentors who may or may not choose to reply to your public comments. Welcome to /., some of us think here, and some of come here because we enjoy being able to discuss the issues addressed.
His "MANTRA" has been "I gave you an informative link that showed specifically one instance where Kerry has lied" it was in direct response to this post where WE were asked as a group "I'm curious what Kerry lied about..." and was provided as a singluar example. For you to not accept the fact that his point was made makes you appear stubborn and foolish. He has no "MANTRA" he plainly replied to a question with an informative answer (modded TROLL - thanks again MODS - I love the homogony you are going for, it makes things so... so... uhh... bland.) that you didn't like hearing.
YES, I am REACTING to your comment and processed it quite easily, I felt it was misinformation, and deregotory to the other poster, and no matter how much of a "Democratic" majority of slashdot members (I was recently modded a troll because I pointed out 5 articles on an anti-Michael Moore site in response to a +5 Informative post saying that nothing but a book ad existed at a given site, and that no articles were available in HTML format, a blatent lie corrected by my "Trolling" post.) I am welcome to join, comment, and reply to any post on /. I feel like, and I did in fact present facts to you, prove them to not be facts and I'll accept your arguement that I am misguided in thinking I am presenting a Fact to you.
[rant]MOD ME DOWN BABY - IF YOU CAN'T BLUDGEON THEM INTO JOINING YOU, YOU CAN AT LEAST CENSOR AND SILENCE THEM SO IT LOOKS LIKE YOUR OPINION IS THE ONLY ONE THAT EXISTS![/rant]
How in God's name is this flamebait? It is factual, informational response - because it doesn't help John Kerry it's flamebait?! Wake up mods! More than one point of view is allowed on /.
[/rant]
I gave you specific examples and you must remember that depending on your preferences here at /. you may or may not be seeing the entire discussion.
His poker chip example was excellent at showing that you cannot give differing answers to the same black or white questions without one of the answers being a lie. This is something you are not processing.
Process this Khasim - when Kerry has been asked "Did you throw away your medals?" he has given at least 4 differing answers to the question that could not be true if any of the others are true - that means that at least three of the responses are lies.
So what did he lie about? He lied about throwing away his medals. Did he throw them away or not - we will likely never know because of his choice to not be completely factual about this important moment for him.
Your original post I replied to stated:
"Since you are unable to clearly specify WHAT LIE HE TOLD,"
So I took the time to explain for you "WHAT LIE HE TOLD." He lied about the medals being thrown.
You continued with your claims of those in disagreement with your views are only capable of repeating a MANTRA:
"...you cannot provide any FACTS for what you believe."
Well, I provided the facts several times - either he told the truth in all four differing responses or he lied in three, since none of the responses can exist without making the other three false - he lied. This is called a Fact, sorry if you don't like its existance, but it is a Fact, not a point of discussion.
As for me not being able to process the DISCUSSION, I directly responded to YOUR comment - I pointed out exactly where the lie is - something you claim the Parent poster could not do even though he clearly had, and provided factual proof of its existance - logic dictates that two differing responses to the question could not both be true because they conflict with each other.
There is nothing to debate here, it has nothing to do with who I (or you for that matter) support in the election (trust me I won't be voting for Bush, Nader, or Kerry,) it has nothing to do with discussion, it is a statement of FACTS. Something you claimed were not being provided. I have processed the information for you, and did not repeat a mantra - rather I stated the logical fact that a yes and no answer to the this question cannot coexist meaning one of those answers is a lie. You are the one repeating a mantra and refusing to process the information being handed out freely.
Are you a fool Khasim??? He plainly points out two specific statements by Kerry that could not both be true - that means he did lie at some point about throwing the medals away.
Now I wasn't there, so I don't know which one is a lie and which one is a truth, but two opposite responses to the same question means that one of those if a lie.
LIE:
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
Here is a FACT for you to claim I am not providing - You cannot answer both yes and no to the question "Did you throw your medals away?" without either the yes or the no being a lie.
He told you specifically what lie he told. I have defined lie. He did not tell you what "TRUTH" he told because that is in question because of the "Lies" he has told - this doesn't mean that a lie was not told. Sorry if this bruises your fragile little views.
Here's another little lie for you:
From the congressional record in 1986 John Kerry being quoted here: "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."
He has repeated this claim at least 8 times on public record since a letter to the Boston Herald in 1979. So, is it true? Not now, according to Kerry - he now says he was never in Cambodia... hmmmm.
Unfortunately the actual Libertarian Party is run by complete nutjobs, leaving us small-l libertarians/classical liberals/South Park Republicans with no home.
Then fix it, if you agree with the basic platforms, but think some of the wack-jobs are too powerful, get involved and help negate the wack-jobbery - I have found in less than a year of being involved with libertarians, that it is fairly easy to have an impact on this group of individuals that are for the most part willing to listen to all involved parties - unlike the major parties where unless you are ponying up millions in donations, your opinion means nothing.
Am I the only one that remembers that the music the ewoks are playing at the end of ROTJ (original) was the theme song to "Sesame Street"? I'd love to know if that was credited by the way. Sure there are no english lyrics, but I can remember watching the film in the theater and singing along in my head with the tune.
"It is only a fucking movie people. Get over it."
Exactly - it's only a movie that redefined special effects, and by lucas choosing to bar the future generations of artisans who do this sort of thing from seeing their roots would be like the Charlie Chaplin being able to prevent future film makers from being able to learn anything from his work.
It's a slap in the face of everyone who worked on a movie that was revolutionary for it's time to have Lucas, who was only one of hundreds of people involved in the creation of the film(s) legacy to claim "They're work was shit so I will do all in my power to make sure future generations cannot lay eyes upon it" - release both you swollen headed egomaniac.
I'm sure I want to receive my education from a school that can't learn to deal with changes in technology. I mean if they are incapable of dealing with something this simple, and just choose to ban use, why would I think they take the easy way out with other tough questions?
YEAH! and... well, uh no it's not a racist statement to assume that all african-americans will vote with the party that most supports welfare and food stamps. Oh wait, did I just see the flaw in your armor?
How is voting my conscience throwing away my vote? Independants and third parties have won many offices in our nation, if I strongly disagree with the two major party candidates, and feel they are unfit to lead, and strongly agree with a third party candidate who is on the ballot - it is my civic duty and moral obligation to vote for the individual I feel best qualified to take the post.
"No, he is interfering with a reasonable search and seizure."
From the video:
Q: "Why do you need to see my license?"
A: "Because I'm investingating an investigation."
Uhh, ok, so it becomes reasonable search and seizure because the officer wants it to be considered reasonable? The easiest way to lose our constitutional rights is to not exercise them, demanding the reason that the officer feels probable cause while not placing the officer, or other citizens in danger is just as reasonable if not more. If the officer cannot justify his reasoning, then he does not have probable cause and is therefore not conducting a reasonable search and seizure.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on Mr. Hibel stating something to the effect of "If you want to see my license, you will have to arrest me, here is my hands place the cuffs on as I am willing to cooperate fully and peacefully with you even if I have an aggitated tone of voice and then you can procure my license yourself, but at the risk of being guilty of false arrest." is not an inappropriate action.
"If that's correct, then how do you explain the discrepancy between reports?"
The 911 tape was used in the court case against Hibel's daughter who was charged with assault on an officer for opening her car door - watch the video she opens the door slowly only to have it literally slammed into her by an officer more than twice her size, knocking her completely off balance, who then immediately reopens the door and roughly drags her out by the wrist and throws her to the ground. The only person assaulted was her. The judge agreed - and threw the case against her out of court. The original call did state that the passenger (The daughter) was assaulting the driver (Mr. Hibel) but was relayed by the dispatcher incorrectly to the responding units.
"I say his behavior is entirely consistent with an intoxicated suspect."
Well, I guess you watch too much COPS or have never done any law enforcement - something I have done, and have the training to do, behavior is but one aspect officers use to determine if a suspect is under the influence - the primary aspect is smell, cooridnation, and the reactions of a suspects eye movement and speech. None of these are the case with Mr. Hibel, and the officer never even suspected him of having been drinking or under the influence.
"If one of these people immediately becomes argumentative or even puts his or her hands out of view, they're going in handcuffs."
It is not a crime to be argumentative, and Mr. Hibel immediately showed the officer his empty hands, offered himself for search, and tried to discuss the situation with the deputy calmly. The deputy's over zealous demands for ID while failing to assess the situation in front of him escalated things into the argumentative tone. Each time the officer stated that if Mr. Hibel did not comply with his request for ID he would arrest Mr. Hibel, he offered his empty palms in a slow controlled manner to be cuffed and stated plainly that if the officer felt the need to arrest him he would cooperate fully. This is the reason that he was not charged with resisting arrest. Perhaps you should take the time to watch the video at the site again or for the first time before you continue to support the loss of the fourth ammendment.
By the way, even though we are obviously on opposite sides of this fence, it's refreshing to have an actual discussion enjoying the first ammendment without it degrading into nonsense.
Ok, I understand that saying bad things like referring to Michael Moore as "Mickey Mou... err Moore" might piss off those that just love the fat jovial liar - but defending a post from a blantent lie (the site you linked contained nothing but a book ad) with factual information is a troll since when.
This is why some people complain about the moderation system here. If you want me to be informative, how about these links:
Not a book ad
Not a book ad
Not a book ad
I could continue this for literally hundreds of HTML formatted documents that GoodNicsTken claimed didn't exist on the site. I love how some moderators feel to ignore the guidelines and use personal objectives to sway the readability of the comments on the site.
Some people have an abrasive personality. Yes, he is being argumentative, but beligerent, no he is standing up for his constitutional right to be secure in his person, papers, and effects.
The peace officer has a duty to protect and serve. This means we get over our little "I have a f'n badge and power" trip and when asked a direct question from an individual, we address the question honestly and fairly. Something that annoys me is that officers feel a need to lie repeatedly in their investigations, which if I remember correctly is fraud.
"Why do you need to see my license?"
The officer immediately could have difused the situation by honestly saying "Because I have recieved a complaint that an individual matching your description was just involved in an assault on an individual matching the description of the passenger in your vehicle, and I need to - for my safety, verify who I am dealing with, and I have probable cause to request this." or he could have used the old, "What's your name sir?" and then checked on the passenger who, based upon the report being investigated had just been assaulted - which could have helped the situation tremendously.
Trust me, Deputy Doogooder has had plenty of training in this technique. You don't "agg-on" an obviously pissed off person, you do your best to calm the situation. Also, the deputy is the one involved here that is supposed to be a professional at handling this and worse situations. Hibel is just a "dumb hick."
Now, let's look at why Mr. Hibel comes across as pissed off and angry. Why is he standing beside his truck when the officer pulls up - he has just spent a few hours hunting down his minor daughter who, against his wishes, has snuck out of the house to go out on a date with a young man several years older than her that he has forbidden her from dating. When he finds his daughter with the boy, he orders her to return home with him, and I'm sure has been in a heated discussion with him during the long drive home. The daughter has gotten so angry that she has assaulted Hibel, this is what prompted the 911 call (the 911 dispatcher is too stupid to correctly identify what she is plainly told - that a passenger was assaulting a driver.)
Mr. Hibel has the presence of mind to pull over, step out of the vehicle and try to calm down for a few minutes by smoking a cigarette. Most, belligerent argumentative individuals would not have been intelligent enough to do what Mr. Hibel was doing, they would have lost their temper. If the officer had done his f'n job, he would have investigated the situation, and then tried to play the "wants and warrents" card - which is exactly what he was doing here, trying to boost arrest rates without doing any "work" and maybe being a reasonable adult, possibly with children of his own, understood Mr. Hibels' obviously aggitated state.
By the way, some people don't have to be "drunk" to come across as angry. You'd make a good officer in this department with your rush to judgement while ignoring all facts in front of your face.
How the hell is this a troll???
That's because there are too many f'n laws - many in conflict with prior laws, many repeating the same things passed prior.
You know in the early 90s there was a move to get a law passed that required the congress to show what section of the Constitution gave them the authority to pass the new law.
Sen. John Glenn stated something to the effect of "If we did this, we couldn't pass so many laws.".... hmmmmm.... maybe that's the point.
It appears from the video that Dudley is rather intoxicated.
You judgemental prick. I do believe it was clear that he was driving, and was not intoxicated - the officers certainly would have checked for intoxication, and have not ever accused Dudley Hibel with drinking or public intoxication.
You see someone with an accent and a cowboy hat and assume he's a drunk. How fucking wonderful is that asstard.
Excuse me GoodNicsTken - the site linked may sell books, but if you dig through the content, however crushing to your view of Mickey Mou... err Moore, it may be, you'll see that there is plenty of information in HTML documents for you to read, the book probably makes it easier for some "non-geeks" to get through it.
WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY! Repeat after me - The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic based on private property and individual rights. The founders of our nation detested "Democracy" calling it a "tyranny of the majority."
Yeah, like Call of Duty (a game of the year winner) and one of the bigger WWII game sellers - it was only about the US, oh - and the Brits, and the Russsians...
And the fact that the majority of developers happen to be in the USA has nothing to do with this I'm sure.
Sorry, my sarcasm knob is stuck at 10 this morning.
I've got a keyboard made from several DOAs that reads
"HELP-CAPTIVE-
IN-KEYBOARD-
FACTORY"
hanging on the wall - most folks have to look at it 5 or 6 times before they get the joke.