[Atlanta Man]

(07-20-2015 01:59 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 11:30 AM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 10:38 AM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

And I just read the Reason article. The follow up explained that she had actually been arrested for ""assaulting a public servant". So again, nobody was arrested for a turn signal, they were arrested for assaulting the officer that stopped them, probably because they had been indoctrinated with an angry ideology, one full of the the falsehoods that have been repeated here, an ideology that tends to have very poor outcomes in the real world. The place to fight the cops is in court, not the side of the road. They built an entire building for it, use it.

You just read the article yet you made the comments before you did, so you you could have prevented this entire discussion by reading the article before commenting about it.

You serious man? If someone tells me the moon is made of green cheese, I don't need to "read an article" and sift through mountains of bullsh!t to point out that he's wrong. You were making outlandish statements that simply aren't true and I called you on them.

If someone wrote "Female outperforms all other Ranger School candidates in PT but is denied entrance due to discrimination" we don't need to read their biased article to know they're wrong, the statement is simply absurd and against everything we know about biology and society. You can just call that one out immediately as based on ideology instead of facts.

Quote:

Again I will inform you that you that the Supreme Court does indeed make the arrest of individuals for any violation of law legal. If this is not the case please post the proof not your opinion. I posted the case law which proved my point which was that you can indeed be arrested for the violation of any law even if that law is only punishable by a fine, you cannot prove that point wrong. If you show me case law that has precedence over Atwater v. Lago Vista I will admit I was wrong, I was on Westlaw five minutes ago so I don't think you can. Post the case number, the court it was decided in, and the year-If it has precedence I will admit I was wrong .

I explained it several times already, you don't have to change US Supreme Court precedent for a state to give additional restrictions on their police officers....and they have. I know this because I run into these restrictions every day I go to work.

The Supreme Court is the FLOOR for restrictions on cops, not the ceiling.

This is a not a productive discussion, so lets just call it a day. I have read your other posts and until this thread I have agreed with most of what you have written previously so I would rather not focus on our disagreements. If your department tells your officers not to arrest people for minor infractions and you personally don't, that is a good thing. If you have been a cop for 20 years you will be near retirement soon, so you are doing better than I am anyway as I will be working until I am 70 -so in the big scheme of things you are winning regardless. Don't judge me solely by this thread, please take the time to read other things I have posted-we have more common ground than differences. Stay up.