The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
No bio...
User ID: 174
I dunno, but to listen to cops and their apologists you'd think that all of them would involve deadly force (on the part of the person stopped against the cop) if the cops weren't so insistent that the stopped person respect their authority.
The Supreme Court, and conservatives in general, do not want people to have gun rights. They want to make an abstract legal point about the Constitution, but they'd be horrified if it had any practical effect. "Sure, you have the right to keep and bear arms. But what makes you think that means you can carry a GUN?"
Yes, I say if some ordinary person rolls up the tinted windows between them and a cop at a stop that's already contentious, the cop is going to put a few rounds into the window and say he was afraid the driver was using the tinted window as cover to get out their own gun. And one "Hoffmeister25" would be among the first to defend said cop. There's no statistical question here -- most people don't do what Hill did, after all.
It reminds me of women who say all men are rapists waiting to be rapey.
So you've got nothing but analogy to your headcanon?
The link I posted claimed 6-14% in 1985. Like I said, this is evergreen drug warrior propaganda and I don't give it credence. I doubt they know the actual numbers and if they did they would lie about it.
Not clear why the flip-side, a dozen or so cops getting capped in the process of serving warrants during the initial weeks of the confiscation effort wouldn't also demoralize their side.
There won't be a dozen or so. There might be one. They would respond with overwhelming force, and further confiscation would be done by cops in full riot/stormtrooper gear, and that would be the end of that.
Why do we assume the unshakeable will of LEOs vs. the meek compliance of the American citizenry?
It's not the will of the LEOs, it's the will of the confiscators giving them orders. There will be enough LEOs who won't push back on their orders.
I do think this depends on the officer's assessment of whether Hill posed a threat to him. If he knew who Hill was (and he probably did), just taking this approach would have made sense.
My guess is that if he didn't know who Hill was, or if he actually thought Hill was a threat (even if he did know who he was), this ends with a few rounds through the window, killing Hill.
Which makes it about 112% THC now, right? If people really did usually smoke low-potency ditchweed, it was before most current smokers were born.
The precedent it sets isn't a legal one, but a practical one. If you're on the right, you can be destroyed for any reason and the legal system will bend over backwards to do it. Your motions will be summarily denied and your appeals unheard. You will be denied your day in court based on procedural gotchas, your lawyers will be sanctioned for defending you, and you will be penalized well beyond your ability to withstand.
Tyreek Hill's job is to catch a ball and run. The cop's job is to enforce the law. Tyreek Hill being kind of an asshole to someone who is, after all, his enemy in that moment is not nearly as concerning as the enforcers of the law being authoritarian bullies based on the slightest excuse.
True; the "Stand with Gaza" sign was the part where she's supporting Hamas, not the plushie.
Yeah, it wasn't one of those either.
And then the IRS would start digging into your parents finances to see if anything belonging to them could be construed as belonging to you... which they would then take. Your parents might not be too hot on that idea.
when someone says "you can't do x," they don't typically mean it's impossible for it to be done, but that doing it would cross some sort of line which would turn off people and cause more damage than what is gained through the use of huge violence
There's no line. People will accept anything as long as the authorities doing it, with the connivance of the press, confidently declare themselves the good guys.
It's weird to hold the idea that some portion of legal gun owners are ticking time bombs willing to throw their lives away to kill random people if pushed to far, but that there WON'T be some amount of violence and deadly if the government sustains a campaign of door-to-door confiscations.
I think in both cases the "some" is very small. The US government declares "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" and enforces it through door-to-door confiscation, they'll do it with very little bloodshed. What little there is will be almost all on the formerly law-abiding gun owner's part.
The post to me read as just a shot at Trump, not so much criticizing him for engaging in lawfare but gloating over him being sanctioned for it. The whole long introduction on the legal system read as an attempt to add verbiage to make the post acceptable as a Motte top-level post. As for what you should have done, either not posted it or gotten to the point more quickly.
He wasn't allowed to present any defense in court, since a default judgement was entered against him.
That argues against demographics mattering. Both Iranian and Arab Islamic populations show affinity for the strictest Islamic governments.
But where I am at least the combination of "where practicable", minimum 1m passing distance, and lane widths means that it's virtually always legal to take the lane, as it's too narrow for a car to safely pass within it.
The ability of cars to pass legally does not affect the practicability of riding to the right. That's the cyclist-advocate logic I'm referring to.
That is a very non-standard meaning of "buying trinkets", Mr. Dumpty.
I'm an opponent of gun rights for certain people, yes. As almost everyone is.
Ah, good old "We've established that; now we're haggling over the price". The purity test is in the Constitution; it admits to some quibbling over exceptions (including felons and non-citizens, as well as minors), but there's no way in hell it admits to "loners" as an exception.
Japan is totally a police state.
Yes, but they generally don't believe in problem cops. Unless the cop is literally caught doing rape or murder, they side with the cop in all cop/citizen interactions.
As far as I know it is not the responsibility of a belligerent in wartime to feed enemy civilians not under their direct control.
- Prev
- Next
Or, for instance, when someone writes a long comment purporting to be about the US legal system, but is really just a vehicle to take a shot at Trump.
More options
Context Copy link