I would chat with her when I'm feeling particularly snarky, but I wouldn't ever call her on the phone.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
So retarded, cops do it every day on their way from the Police Headquarters to the court in downtown.
And they encourage other citizens around them to do it too if the steupid walk sign is not switching with zero cars visible by the human eye.
(I spelled steupid wrong on purpose).
Whats more funny is when someone tells me I am ruining their life because they are being arrested.
Im like, last time I checked if you weren't the one doing this then you wouldn't be getting arrested, YOU are ruining YOUR life.
People who blame cops for what they are doing wrong are lame.
On a serious note though, its not the police you should have issue with when dealing with a retarded law, its the legislators. You know, those people that are sometimes referred to as 'lawmakers'
Last edited by Caine; 07-13-09 at 05:43 PM.
I don’t believe in "the law." Its not my religion. Whether a law was broken is not always a clear-cut question anyway. There also is a difference between personal behavior regulating laws (traffic, drugs) that I tend to ignore limiting myself only on questions of what I can get away with and laws related to offenses against other people (theft, violence) where laws on violence are not precise.
I was arrested or detained many times for assault type issues before my life changed notably. No convictions. The line between defense and offense can be blurred. When does legal defense shift to illegal offense? If you are defending yourself or someone else from assault how far can that defense go? For example if a person tries to hit you how many times can you hit the person in defense? 1? 5? 50? Can you break bones? If so, how many? Does the abilities of the people involve matter and if so how much?
Some people would underestimate me and over estimate themselves possibly due to being drunk or drugged up. Does that factor into it?
If defending someone else does it matter who that person is? For example defending a child or a woman from violence as opposed to some drunk getting in my face?
Usually the police would not become involved but if they did it could be complicated. The longest I was held in jail was for my response to a man at a C-store violently abusing a child. It was all on the store video. They wouldn’t release me until they knew if he was going to live and for the most part recover. But why would that make a difference on guilt or innocence?
The interviewing police all agreed I was within my rights and even acted correctly in defense of the child. Not one of them could answer the question of at what moment on the video did my action become legally questionable. Did it really matter that seemingly that whimpy child abuser had no chance against me even if I was blindfolded and had one arm tied behind my back? Was I really defending that child or dishing out just retribution? If a person pulls strength from personal rage does that rage then convert a legal action to criminal? Can you really build a criminal case around speculating what a person’s true motives were? Almost all their questions were about what I was thinking and how I felt about it. Only a fool would answer those questions.
I’ve had that discussion with police and the only answer they can give is the abstract answer of “reasonable.” This is an example of the huge discretion police have and that criminal law isn’t as absolute as people tend to think it is. They never had a problem with a violent response. Only with the extent of the violent response. Other times its not clear what happened to police because of conflicting stories people were telling. Ultimately the question always came down to whether the police officers actually involved wanted to arrest or prosecute or not. On occasion they decided to arrest but then always decided not to prosecute.
I wouldn’t be a good person on a jury for how juries now are suppose to work because my decision would be on what I thought is right and wrong and not on “the law.” The law is about government power and not me. “The law” never protected me or anyone I know so I would see no reason to protect the law.