Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


#Actualsamoth

Posted 02 July 2013 - 03:48 AM

Police are allowed to approach people and ask them questions. You are likewise allowed to not answer them. If you flee from a police officer who is trying to ask you questions you can be charged with obstruction.

Yes, but you are also perfectly allowed to flee from or resist "police" that isn't recognizable as such and who tries to "stop" you (rob you) under a false premise. If three guys who look like gang members knock at your door and shout "Police! Open!", do you open the door, or do you get your shotgun out of the closet? If a hobo in the subway who "works for the NSA" wants to confiscate your laptop because you are an alleged spy, do you give him your laptop?

 

Complying with "police" presumes plausibility. If someone who doesn't look like police comes at you in a dark street for an alleged crime that you know you didn't commit, they probably are not police, and it's probably a good idea to either flee or tazer them.
 

So... I don't know where you read about the parental puchase thing, but the government of Virginia seems to disagree.

The NIH says so: ""making a delivery of alcoholic beverages by order of his parent". To me this reads like you're allowed to carry alcohol in Virginia if your parents told you to go and get some, no matter how old you are.

Now, that girl might have bought alcohol without her parents' knowlegde, or she might have been carrying a written permit that she had shown to the shopkeeper, or the shopkeeper might just sell her alcohol because she comes twice per week on her parents' order.

 

We cannot know this, and neither could the police that evening (well, we do know now, because charges were dropped, so she demonstrably had nothing illegal, including alcohol, on her).

 


Reasonable suspicion is a pretty well-documented idea.

That's exactly what I was saying earlier. But "reasonable" is the important detail.

If gunshots and cries are being heard and you leave a bank wearing a black mask a moment later, it is reasonable to suspect that you're committing a crime. In this situation, it is even justified to point a gun at you. Most people coming out of banks do not wear black masks, and usually there are no gunshots and cries.

If a group of teenagers or "youngish people" is sitting at the beach with no "obviously adult" people around and they're being loud, uninhibited, and drinking alcohol, it is reasonable to suspect that they might be under age and might not have their parents' permission, so it's justifiable to ask for an ID to verify their age.

 

If you're a mean looking guy with a beard and wearing dark sunglasses, and the child next to you is crying "Help me, help me", it is reasonable to stop your car under the assumption of kidnapping (but it's not justifiable to shoot you down, the child might be doing a prank).

If the same child is just sitting next to you or maybe asking "Daddy, can we have some icecream?" it is not reasonable to stop your car, even if you have a beard and wear sunglasses, or if you look like Denny Trejo.

 

If you come out of a shop, the reasonable assumption is that whatever you bought in that shop is legitimate. Millions of people come out of shops every day, and most of them bought legal things legitimately.

 

And it is not only reasonable, the presumption of innocence is the base of the entire legal system. If you turn the presumption of innocence into a presumption of guilt, the legal system becomes a mockery.

 

Police like to see themselves as "the law" (or above the law) and so often ignore this petty detail. Alas, they are not "the law" and they do not make "the law", they are to serve it. If you come out of a shop and there's nothing else to it (no gunshots, no blood, no broken glass, no alarm, no people running for their lives), it's nobody's fucking business who you are, how old you are, or what you're carrying. The assumption is first and foremost that you're innocent.

 


they wouldn't be enforcing the law, which is the raison d'etre for law enforcement

If your law enforcement has "SS" tattooed on their arms in Arian runes, yes. Otherwise no. Most people, police included, forget what the police is about and what their duty is. Their duty is to serve and protect the citizens (US police even have this written on their badges). Yes, this includes making sure that people follow the law. After all, the law, too, is to serve the people.

However, their duty is not to harrass and oppress people, nor to suspect and "criminalize" people when according to the situation, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption that they're not doing anything wrong.

 


It's hard to take your arguments seriously if you admit to saying things you know not to be true as the basis for those arguments. Lying to present a point often has the effect of making your side look desperate and irrational

How is it lying or admitting to know points are not true if I say I've read that other article? The article states that the police spokesman (Carol Whateverhername) said the female officer was the first to approach the girl. Where is a truth in this? This is the spokeman's (spokewoman's -- does that exist in English?) story, and of course according to her the police did everything right, what else. You certainly don't expect the police spokesmen to make a press statement like "Yeah, sorry, our guys were a bit rough when they gangbanged her".

The female officer might as well not have been the first to approach the girl, and the girl might not have seen her at all, but only men rushing at her. She may have been pressed into staying quiet on the details on the premise that otherwise some cocaine was "found" in her car, but charges would be dropped if she played along. We simply don't know.

All we know is that the girl was arrested and released with charges dropped, which is a strong indication that she was entirely innocent and the cops couldn't charge her with anything even after trying hard to find something (questioning and searching her, and presumably searching the car too).

 

But my point is that it's irrelevant what Carol the Spokesman said or even what actually happened during this manueuver, since the entire manueuver was unjustified from the beginning.

 

You seem to think that I meant following anti-assault guidelines as an argument against your point of view when I was merely pointing out an interesting thing that someone else said somewhere else.

Not at all, I interpreted this as something you stated, which indeed showed rather agreement from your sie than disagreement. Why on earth would you use something that is obviously an argument for the girl feeling ambushed/assaulted if your opinion was the opposite?

I may come over as a bit "excentric" sometimes, but hey, please don't take me for a complete fool smile.png


#3samoth

Posted 02 July 2013 - 03:44 AM

Police are allowed to approach people and ask them questions. You are likewise allowed to not answer them. If you flee from a police officer who is trying to ask you questions you can be charged with obstruction.

Yes, but you are also perfectly allowed to flee from or resist "police" that isn't recognizable as such and who tries to "stop" you (rob you) under a false premise. If three guys who look like gang members knock at your door and shout "Police! Open!", do you open the door, or do you get your shotgun out of the closet? If a hobo in the subway who "works for the NSA" wants to confiscate your laptop because you are an alleged spy, do you give him your laptop?

 

Complying with "police" presumes plausibility. If someone who doesn't look like police comes at you in a dark street for an alleged crime that you know you didn't commit, they probably are not police, and it's probably a good idea to either flee or tazer them.
 

So... I don't know where you read about the parental puchase thing, but the government of Virginia seems to disagree.

The NIH says so: ""making a delivery of alcoholic beverages by order of his parent". To me this reads like you're allowed to carry alcohol in Virginia if your parents told you to go and get some, no matter how old you are.

Now, that girl might have bought alcohol without her parents' knowlegde, or she might have been carrying a written permit that she had shown to the shopkeeper, or the shopkeeper might just sell her alcohol because she comes twice per week on her parents' order.

 

We cannot know this, and neither could the police that evening (well, we do know now, because charges were dropped, so she demonstrably had nothing illegal, including alcohol, on her).

 


Reasonable suspicion is a pretty well-documented idea.

That's exactly what I was saying earlier. But "reasonable" is the important detail.

If gunshots and cries are being heard and you leave a bank wearing a black mask a moment later, it is reasonable to suspect that you're committing a crime. In this situation, it is even justified to point a gun at you. Most people coming out of banks do not wear black masks, and usually there are no gunshots and cries.

If a group of teenagers or "youngish people" is sitting at the beach with no "obviously adult" people around and they're being loud, uninhibited, and drinking alcohol, it is reasonable to suspect that they might be under age and might not have their parents' permission, so it's justifiable to ask for an ID to verify their age.

 

If you're a mean looking guy with a beard and wearing dark sunglasses, and the child next to you is crying "Help me, help me", it is reasonable to stop your car under the assumption of kidnapping (but it's not justifiable to shoot you down, the child might be doing a prank).

If the same child is just sitting next to you or maybe asking "Daddy, can we have some icecream?" it is not reasonable to stop your car, even if you have a beard and wear sunglasses, or if you look like Denny Trejo.

If you come out of a shop, the reasonable assumption is that whatever you bought in that shop is legitimate. Millions of people come out of shops every day, and most of them bought legal things legitimately.

 

And it is not only reasonable, the presumption of innocence is the base of the entire legal system. If you turn the presumption of innocence into a presumption of guilt, the legal system becomes a mockery.

 

Police like to see themselves as "the law" (or above the law) and so often ignore this petty detail. Alas, they are not "the law" and they do not make "the law", they are to serve it. If you come out of a shop and there's nothing else to it (no gunshots, no blood, no broken glass, no alarm, no people running for their lives), it's nobody's fucking business who you are, how old you are, or what you're carrying. The assumption is first and foremost that you're innocent.

 


they wouldn't be enforcing the law, which is the raison d'etre for law enforcement

If your law enforcement has "SS" tattooed on their arms in Arian runes, yes. Otherwise no. Most people, police included, forget what the police is about and what their duty is. Their duty is to serve and protect the citizens (US police even have this written on their badges). Yes, this includes making sure that people follow the law. After all, the law, too, is to serve the people.

However, their duty is not to harrass and oppress people, nor to suspect and "criminalize" people when according to the situation, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption that they're not doing anything wrong.

 


It's hard to take your arguments seriously if you admit to saying things you know not to be true as the basis for those arguments. Lying to present a point often has the effect of making your side look desperate and irrational

How is it lying or admitting to know points are not true if I say I've read that other article? The article states that the police spokesman (Carol Whateverhername) said the female officer was the first to approach the girl. Where is a truth in this? This is the spokeman's (spokewoman's -- does that exist in English?) story, and of course according to her the police did everything right, what else. You certainly don't expect the police spokesmen to make a press statement like "Yeah, sorry, our guys were a bit rough when they gangbanged her".

The female officer might as well not have been the first to approach the girl, and the girl might not have seen her at all, but only men rushing at her. She may have been pressed into staying quiet on the details on the premise that otherwise some cocaine was "found" in her car, but charges would be dropped if she played along. We simply don't know.

All we know is that the girl was arrested and released with charges dropped, which is a strong indication that she was entirely innocent and the cops couldn't charge her with anything even after trying hard to find something (questioning and searching her, and presumably searching the car too).

 

But my point is that it's irrelevant what Carol the Spokesman said or even what actually happened during this manueuver, since the entire manueuver was unjustified from the beginning.

 

You seem to think that I meant following anti-assault guidelines as an argument against your point of view when I was merely pointing out an interesting thing that someone else said somewhere else.

Not at all, I interpreted this as something you stated, which indeed showed rather agreement from your sie than disagreement. Why on earth would you use something that is obviously an argument for the girl feeling ambushed/assaulted if your opinion was the opposite?

I may come over as a bit "excentric" sometimes, but hey, please don't take me for a complete fool smile.png


#2samoth

Posted 02 July 2013 - 03:43 AM

Police are allowed to approach people and ask them questions. You are likewise allowed to not answer them. If you flee from a police officer who is trying to ask you questions you can be charged with obstruction.

Yes, but you are also perfectly allowed to flee from or resist "police" that isn't recognizable as such and who tries to "stop" you (rob you) under a false premise. If three guys who look like gang members knock at your door and shout "Police! Open!", do you open the door, or do you get your shotgun out of the closet? If a hobo in the subway who works for the NSA wants to confiscate your laptop because you are an alleged spy, do you give him your laptop?

 

Complying with "police" presumes plausibility. If someone who doesn't look like police comes at you in a dark street for an alleged crime that you know you didn't commit, they probably are not police, and it's probably a good idea to either flee or tazer them.
 

So... I don't know where you read about the parental puchase thing, but the government of Virginia seems to disagree.

The NIH says so: ""making a delivery of alcoholic beverages by order of his parent". To me this reads like you're allowed to carry alcohol in Virginia if your parents told you to go and get some, no matter how old you are.

Now, that girl might have bought alcohol without her parents' knowlegde, or she might have been carrying a written permit that she had shown to the shopkeeper, or the shopkeeper might just sell her alcohol because she comes twice per week on her parents' order.

 

We cannot know this, and neither could the police that evening (well, we do know now, because charges were dropped, so she demonstrably had nothing illegal, including alcohol, on her).

 


Reasonable suspicion is a pretty well-documented idea.

That's exactly what I was saying earlier. But "reasonable" is the important detail.

If gunshots and cries are being heard and you leave a bank wearing a black mask a moment later, it is reasonable to suspect that you're committing a crime. In this situation, it is even justified to point a gun at you. Most people coming out of banks do not wear black masks, and usually there are no gunshots and cries.

If a group of teenagers or "youngish people" is sitting at the beach with no "obviously adult" people around and they're being loud, uninhibited, and drinking alcohol, it is reasonable to suspect that they might be under age and might not have their parents' permission, so it's justifiable to ask for an ID to verify their age.

 

If you're a mean looking guy with a beard and wearing dark sunglasses, and the child next to you is crying "Help me, help me", it is reasonable to stop your car under the assumption of kidnapping (but it's not justifiable to shoot you down, the child might be doing a prank).

If the same child is just sitting next to you or maybe asking "Daddy, can we have some icecream?" it is not reasonable to stop your car, even if you have a beard and wear sunglasses, or if you look like Denny Trejo.

If you come out of a shop, the reasonable assumption is that whatever you bought in that shop is legitimate. Millions of people come out of shops every day, and most of them bought legal things legitimately.

 

And it is not only reasonable, the presumption of innocence is the base of the entire legal system. If you turn the presumption of innocence into a presumption of guilt, the legal system becomes a mockery.

 

Police like to see themselves as "the law" (or above the law) and so often ignore this petty detail. Alas, they are not "the law" and they do not make "the law", they are to serve it. If you come out of a shop and there's nothing else to it (no gunshots, no blood, no broken glass, no alarm, no people running for their lives), it's nobody's fucking business who you are, how old you are, or what you're carrying. The assumption is first and foremost that you're innocent.

 


they wouldn't be enforcing the law, which is the raison d'etre for law enforcement

If your law enforcement has "SS" tattooed on their arms in Arian runes, yes. Otherwise no. Most people, police included, forget what the police is about and what their duty is. Their duty is to serve and protect the citizens (US police even have this written on their badges). Yes, this includes making sure that people follow the law. After all, the law, too, is to serve the people.

However, their duty is not to harrass and oppress people, nor to suspect and "criminalize" people when according to the situation, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption that they're not doing anything wrong.

 


It's hard to take your arguments seriously if you admit to saying things you know not to be true as the basis for those arguments. Lying to present a point often has the effect of making your side look desperate and irrational

How is it lying or admitting to know points are not true if I say I've read that other article? The article states that the police spokesman (Carol Whateverhername) said the female officer was the first to approach the girl. Where is a truth in this? This is the spokeman's (spokewoman's -- does that exist in English?) story, and of course according to her the police did everything right, what else. You certainly don't expect the police spokesmen to make a press statement like "Yeah, sorry, our guys were a bit rough when they gangbanged her".

The female officer might as well not have been the first to approach the girl, and the girl might not have seen her at all, but only men rushing at her. She may have been pressed into staying quiet on the details on the premise that otherwise some cocaine was "found" in her car, but charges would be dropped if she played along. We simply don't know.

All we know is that the girl was arrested and released with charges dropped, which is a strong indication that she was entirely innocent and the cops couldn't charge her with anything even after trying hard to find something (questioning and searching her, and presumably searching the car too).

 

But my point is that it's irrelevant what Carol the Spokesman said or even what actually happened during this manueuver, since the entire manueuver was unjustified from the beginning.

 

You seem to think that I meant following anti-assault guidelines as an argument against your point of view when I was merely pointing out an interesting thing that someone else said somewhere else.

Not at all, I interpreted this as something you stated, which indeed showed rather agreement from your sie than disagreement. Why on earth would you use something that is obviously an argument for the girl feeling ambushed/assaulted if your opinion was the opposite?

I may come over as a bit "excentric" sometimes, but hey, please don't take me for a complete fool smile.png


#1samoth

Posted 02 July 2013 - 03:43 AM

Police are allowed to approach people and ask them questions. You are likewise allowed to not answer them. If you flee from a police officer who is trying to ask you questions you can be charged with obstruction.

Yes, but you are also perfectly allowed to flee from or resist "police" that isn't recognizable as such and who tries to "stop" you (rob you) a false premise. If three guys who look like gang members knock at your door and shout "Police! Open!", do you open the door, or do you get your shotgun out of the closet? If a hobo in the subway who works for the NSA wants to confiscate your laptop because you are an alleged spy, do you give him your laptop?

 

Complying with "police" presumes plausibility. If someone who doesn't look like police comes at you in a dark street for an alleged crime that you know you didn't commit, they probably are not police, and it's probably a good idea to either flee or tazer them.
 

So... I don't know where you read about the parental puchase thing, but the government of Virginia seems to disagree.

The NIH says so: ""making a delivery of alcoholic beverages by order of his parent". To me this reads like you're allowed to carry alcohol in Virginia if your parents told you to go and get some, no matter how old you are.

Now, that girl might have bought alcohol without her parents' knowlegde, or she might have been carrying a written permit that she had shown to the shopkeeper, or the shopkeeper might just sell her alcohol because she comes twice per week on her parents' order.

 

We cannot know this, and neither could the police that evening (well, we do know now, because charges were dropped, so she demonstrably had nothing illegal, including alcohol, on her).

 


Reasonable suspicion is a pretty well-documented idea.

That's exactly what I was saying earlier. But "reasonable" is the important detail.

If gunshots and cries are being heard and you leave a bank wearing a black mask a moment later, it is reasonable to suspect that you're committing a crime. In this situation, it is even justified to point a gun at you. Most people coming out of banks do not wear black masks, and usually there are no gunshots and cries.

If a group of teenagers or "youngish people" is sitting at the beach with no "obviously adult" people around and they're being loud, uninhibited, and drinking alcohol, it is reasonable to suspect that they might be under age and might not have their parents' permission, so it's justifiable to ask for an ID to verify their age.

 

If you're a mean looking guy with a beard and wearing dark sunglasses, and the child next to you is crying "Help me, help me", it is reasonable to stop your car under the assumption of kidnapping (but it's not justifiable to shoot you down, the child might be doing a prank).

If the same child is just sitting next to you or maybe asking "Daddy, can we have some icecream?" it is not reasonable to stop your car, even if you have a beard and wear sunglasses, or if you look like Denny Trejo.

If you come out of a shop, the reasonable assumption is that whatever you bought in that shop is legitimate. Millions of people come out of shops every day, and most of them bought legal things legitimately.

 

And it is not only reasonable, the presumption of innocence is the base of the entire legal system. If you turn the presumption of innocence into a presumption of guilt, the legal system becomes a mockery.

 

Police like to see themselves as "the law" (or above the law) and so often ignore this petty detail. Alas, they are not "the law" and they do not make "the law", they are to serve it. If you come out of a shop and there's nothing else to it (no gunshots, no blood, no broken glass, no alarm, no people running for their lives), it's nobody's fucking business who you are, how old you are, or what you're carrying. The assumption is first and foremost that you're innocent.

 


they wouldn't be enforcing the law, which is the raison d'etre for law enforcement

If your law enforcement has "SS" tattooed on their arms in Arian runes, yes. Otherwise no. Most people, police included, forget what the police is about and what their duty is. Their duty is to serve and protect the citizens (US police even have this written on their badges). Yes, this includes making sure that people follow the law. After all, the law, too, is to serve the people.

However, their duty is not to harrass and oppress people, nor to suspect and "criminalize" people when according to the situation, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption that they're not doing anything wrong.

 


It's hard to take your arguments seriously if you admit to saying things you know not to be true as the basis for those arguments. Lying to present a point often has the effect of making your side look desperate and irrational

How is it lying or admitting to know points are not true if I say I've read that other article? The article states that the police spokesman (Carol Whateverhername) said the female officer was the first to approach the girl. Where is a truth in this? This is the spokeman's (spokewoman's -- does that exist in English?) story, and of course according to her the police did everything right, what else. You certainly don't expect the police spokesmen to make a press statement like "Yeah, sorry, our guys were a bit rough when they gangbanged her".

The female officer might as well not have been the first to approach the girl, and the girl might not have seen her at all, but only men rushing at her. She may have been pressed into staying quiet on the details on the premise that otherwise some cocaine was "found" in her car, but charges would be dropped if she played along. We simply don't know.

All we know is that the girl was arrested and released with charges dropped, which is a strong indication that she was entirely innocent and the cops couldn't charge her with anything even after trying hard to find something (questioning and searching her, and presumably searching the car too).

 

But my point is that it's irrelevant what Carol the Spokesman said or even what actually happened during this manueuver, since the entire manueuver was unjustified from the beginning.

 

You seem to think that I meant following anti-assault guidelines as an argument against your point of view when I was merely pointing out an interesting thing that someone else said somewhere else.

Not at all, I interpreted this as something you stated, which indeed showed rather agreement from your sie than disagreement. Why on earth would you use something that is obviously an argument for the girl feeling ambushed/assaulted if your opinion was the opposite?

I may come over as a bit "excentric" sometimes, but hey, please don't take me for a complete fool :)


PARTNERS