Posted on 10/03/2016 3:50:17 PM PDT by MeganC
How is it “applauding the jackals” if I’m not supporting the police arresting people who haven’t broken the law?
Good points
What frickin’ planet do you live on?
I watched enough of this video to see that this slick lawyer was interfering with the traffic stop.
He *should* have been arrested! He is a jackal.
Pretty obvious to me that the lawyer was trying to create trouble.
The cop wrongfully started the situation by challenging the man who was not breaking any law. If a cop can’t stand a law abiding citizen lawfully video recording them from across the street then they need to get out of the police business and get a job where they don’t have to submit to public scrutiny.
This is important because we’re also seeing situations in states where open carry and concealed carry are legal yet some cops are taking it upon themselves to enforce non-existent gun control laws against law abiding citizens.
It is cops like that which is why we have a Second Amendment.
Why you insist on cops having magisterial authority in a Constitutional republic completely eludes me.
Perhaps instead of my explaining why I want cops to obey the Constitution and the law maybe you can explain to me why you think they should have the authority to do whatever they want to whoever they want whenever they want to?
Yup. I have no problem with cops having little video recorders on their uniforms. In fact, I think it should be mandatory. What I WANT is for the cops to record me every time they interact with me. That makes a record of my bad behavior and also their bad behavior.
But if cops will have those cameras, and be recording me ...
Then it just makes sense that citizens should be able to stand across the street with their own cameras and record the same interaction. Where’s the harm?
I swear, a lot of the anger in this country is based around this sort of double set of laws. Hillary can do THIS thing, but I cannot. The cops can do THAT thing, but I cannot.
One law. One people. This is basic to our system, and yet it has slipped away from us.
“One law. One people. This is basic to our system, and yet it has slipped away from us.”
It’s slipped away from us because too many people are so willing to trade liberty for security.
“It’s slipped away from us because too many people are so willing to trade liberty for security.”
What good is liberty if there is anarchy?
.
I was reminded of the old Ben Franklin quote while recently watching the movie “Snowden”.
Snowden is controversial because he did expose classified data, and I think that this is generally a bad thing to do.
But Snowden wanted people to know that we had definitely traded our freedom in return for security. And we didn’t know we had made that bargain. No one told us. And perhaps we no longer deserved either freedom or security.
Certainly I feel less secure and less free as a result of the Patriot Act and so many other steps taken by our government. I think my government is out to get me.
What good is liberty if you’re willing to surrender it for the comfort provided by prison guards? North Korea is a perfect state by this measure because they have a remarkable absence of anarchy, do they not?
And to willingly surrender your liberty for security?
Samuel Adams spoke to this:
“It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or of any number of men, at the entering into society to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights, when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are life, liberty, and property.
If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up an essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right of freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.”
Perhaps you could explain why it is that muckrakers like that shyster lawyer deserve mollycoddling.
If you bothered to watch the video, you would have seen that said shyster hectored the police pretty much the whole time they were doing their job BEFORE walking over to them and interfering.
They *were* obeying the Constitution. If I had I targeted with a law fully executed police investigation, I would expect to be arrested also.
And I’d appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth or think you know what my thinking is. You do not.
‘Pod.
If someone isn’t breaking the law then the police have no business interfering with them. As to “hectoring” the police the US Supreme Court already decided that I can tell a cop to go f*** himself and that it’s protected speech.
Again, if a cop can’t handle dealing with the public then they need to find another job.
And if they’re going to arrest people who are not breaking an actual law then such cops need to be arrested and prosecuted for kidnapping and whatever else they’ve done in violation of the law and their oaths.
Are you really this dense? You’re comparing apples and oranges.
Saying ‘F- you’ to a cop is not the same thing at all to interfering with a legitimate police investigation.
Which is what he DID!!!
The video doesn’t show what you’re spinning here. The man was across the street from the traffic stop and the cop approached him and instigated the problem.
Even the cop’s own police chief agreed the arrest and the whole interaction were out of line.
Who does he think he is, anyway? A judge?
I’m spinning nothing. The video has audio.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.