• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

RT presenter choked by police

Harry Guerrilla said:
Victimless crimes hurt no one, the ones you listed could have side effects on non using bystanders.
Click to expand...

Dancing could have side effects on non dancing bystanders.... If you want to go that petty route.
 
Caine said:
When that Authority governs how we (law enforcement) operate.. yes, I will appeal to authority.
Click to expand...

It's funny that you keep forgetting that under all of the state Constitutions state that all authority rests in the hands of the people and stems from it. :lol:
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It this particular case, it didn't.
That's the problem, the arrests were for a victimless crime.

No one got hurt, except the people dancing.
Click to expand...

The people dancing didn't get hurt.... can you show me where they did?

If you are going to cite the guy yelling about his shoulder... I would suggest you re-watch the video because it appears that the longer haired guy in the white shirt complaining about his shoulder was actually speaking to the idiot fellow protestor who grabbed his shoulder and tried to pull him away when the officer went to arrest him. The guy who started yelling about his shoulder was complying with the officer before his idiot buddy started trying to pull him away. His own protestor buddy was the one who caused that injury. Officer and White-Shirt Longer Haired protestor were doing just fine with the peaceful arrest procedure.
 
The_Patriot said:
It's funny that you keep forgetting that under all of the state Constitutions state that all authority rests in the hands of the people and stems from it. :lol:
Click to expand...

But can you tell me how it applies?

The way you suggest it means that If I go to arrest a drunk driver tonight, and he says, "Im not giving you the authority to arrest me" Im supposed to just stop......

Making this generalized statement means nothing if you can't show how it actually applies, its nothing more than empty rhetoric.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Dancing ... might cost the Parks Service millions of dollars a year in revenue if dancing was allowed for all I know.
Click to expand...

Might cost? How can a human body that is slightly accelerated in movement and rhythmic in nature cause millions in revenue, compared to people just standing?

GPS_Flex said:
BTW, smoking has been shown to increase the chances of getting cancer. If you smoke, there is no proof that you will contract cancer. If you smell smoke, you aren’t going to get cancer but you might be offended.
Click to expand...

It increases that chance you get cancer. It's smell is invasive and unaesthetic. The harm is may be neglible for one moment, but society is concerned with the accumulative exposure which increase the level of harm. Smoking an unneccessary, filthy and is an accumulative hazard to others, so it should be limited to areas where it affects only the person doing it.
 
Caine said:
The people dancing didn't get hurt.... can you show me where they did?

If you are going to cite the guy yelling about his shoulder... I would suggest you re-watch the video because it appears that the longer haired guy in the white shirt complaining about his shoulder was actually speaking to the idiot fellow protestor who grabbed his shoulder and tried to pull him away when the officer went to arrest him. The guy who started yelling about his shoulder was complying with the officer before his idiot buddy started trying to pull him away. His own protestor buddy was the one who caused that injury. Officer and White-Shirt Longer Haired protestor were doing just fine with the peaceful arrest procedure.
Click to expand...

Being thrown on the ground "hurts" in any other situation with any other person, it would be assault and battery.

There should of been no arrest, there was no victim in a crime.
It's totally wrong.
 
Caine said:
But can you tell me how it applies?

The way you suggest it means that If I go to arrest a drunk driver tonight, and he says, "Im not giving you the authority to arrest me" Im supposed to just stop......

Making this generalized statement means nothing if you can't show how it actually applies, its nothing more than empty rhetoric.
Click to expand...

You made an appeal to authority in the courts saying that they were higher then the people. I proved you wrong with the law. Do you enforce all laws or selectively pick them? I ask because every time I bring up this provision of state Constitutions you bristle.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Being thrown on the ground "hurts" in any other situation with any other person, it would be assault and battery.

There should of been no arrest, there was no victim in a crime.
It's totally wrong.
Click to expand...

So you are going to blame the police for a situation that a fellow protestor created?

So If I go to arrest someone, and they begin to comply, and then their friend comes from left field and does a football tackle on the arrestee to seperate me from him and keep his friend from getting handcuffed that injury that is created is MY fault?

Are you that ..... (nevermind).
 
The_Patriot said:
You made an appeal to authority in the courts saying that they were higher then the people. I proved you wrong with the law. Do you enforce all laws or selectively pick them? I ask because every time I bring up this provision of state Constitutions you bristle.
Click to expand...

So, you can't tell me how it actually applies.

You can't explain how the power of the people applies to a particular situation can you?

Thanks for answering the question.
 
GPS_Flex said:
I find your reasoning humorous. You can’t find anything real to argue on the issue so you make Nazi comparisons. It is the sign of a weak mind and a weak argument (with a lot of drama queen thrown in too).

Right. Arresting protesters who break the law is the same as the holocaust and the cops are no different than the monsters who threw Jews into ovens. What a great argument. Should we hang these Nazi cops at The Hague?
Click to expand...

You sound like a sympathiser. Anything that may remind a person of the horrors committed by Nazis must be considered in a bad light. One problem though, you did misuse Godwin's Law. It wasn't intended to point out a fallacy. It was intended to point out that using Hitler in an analogy may diminish ones argument. My point was appropriate, because it was about following orders that harm innocent people.

As for your second paragraph, you have committed the Strawman argument. I never said that and any reasonable person follwing this thread knows it. Your credibility has just lost a few points. The only way for you to gain those points is to admit you have misunderstood things or pretend some more, which also causes a loss in credibility points.

I myself prefer humility. As a chess player, I know I win a new strategy when I loose. Defeat need not be so bad.
 
Last edited:
Caine said:
So, you can't tell me how it actually applies.

You can't explain how the power of the people applies to a particular situation can you?

Thanks for answering the question.
Click to expand...

I actually did answer your question, but I'll be more clearer. The final determination of what is legal, just, and constitutional rests in the hands of the people. It is a protected right in the Constitution of the United States and all of the state Constitutions. Do you or do you not support the protected right of the people to being the final authority on government?
 
Caine said:
No. Law Enforcement Officers are authorized to make arrests for violations of the law that are above an infraction. (There are infractions, misdemeanors, and felonies, in that order). Any Law Enforcement Officer that is attempting to effect an arrest may use the force that is reasonable and prudent in the circumstance of resistance they are facing. Nowhere does it say that the crime have to be one which is harming others in order for officers to use force. Use of force is not a PUNISHMENT, it is a tool used to make an arrest in a situation where one is resisting that arrest.
Click to expand...

I don't care what stupidity they are authorized to do. Use some common sense or look like an idiot like these guys.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Victimless crimes hurt no one, the ones you listed could have side effects on non using bystanders.
Click to expand...

We could make a new thread debating the effects of second hand smoke but I’ll concede that those weren’t the best examples.

What if I decided to have sex with my partner on the Lincoln Memorial where everyone could see? Should I be arrested?

How about if I went into a library and began to scream at the top of my lungs while you were trying to read a book or study? Should I be arrested?

What if I decided to get naked and run across the field at a sporting event? Should I be arrested?

There is a difference between public and private. There are no laws against dancing, having sex, getting naked or screaming at the top of your lungs but there are laws that prohibit where you can and can’t do it.
 
empireofreason said:
You sound like a sympathiser. Anything that may remind a person of the horrors committed by Nazis must be considered in a bad light. One problem though, you did misuse Godwin's Law. It wasn't intended to point out a fallacy. It was intended to point out that using Hitler in an analogy may diminish ones argument. My point was appropriate, because it was about following orders that harm innocent people.

As for your second paragraph, you have committed the Strawman argument. I never said that and any reasonable person follwing this thread knows it. Your credibility has just lost a few points. The only way for you to gain those points is to admit you have misunderstood things or pretend some more, which also causes a loss in credibility points.

I myself prefer humility. As a chess player, I know I win a new strategy when I loose. Defeat need not be so bad.
Click to expand...

No, it points out that the first to rush to Nazi comparisons loses the argument, loser.
 
The_Patriot said:
I actually did answer your question, but I'll be more clearer. The final determination of what is legal, just, and constitutional rests in the hands of the people. It is a protected right in the Constitution of the United States and all of the state Constitutions. Do you or do you not support the protected right of the people to being the final authority on government?
Click to expand...

How do "the people" express their determination as a solidary unit?

Or are you suggesting that if I arrest for drunk driving and they are drunk and their judgement is already impaired and they claim they are not drunk they are free to say screw you You can't arrest me and I have to say, "Well, my power rests in you so have a nice day and please kill some people on your drive home."

See how your response of rhetoric is a failure to address the question?
 
empireofreason said:
I don't care what stupidity they are authorized to do. Use some common sense or look like an idiot like these guys.
Click to expand...

I swear I think you are talking about the morons who went to the Memorial with the goal of getting arrested and resisting that arrest and creating a scene so they could video tape it.......
 
GPS_Flex said:
What if I decided to have sex with my partner on the Lincoln Memorial where everyone could see? Should I be arrested?
Click to expand...

I doubt you'd do this. But, as long as you cleaned up after yourself, what harm can proven? This is where morality has attempted to assert itself as law. Two very different things. Sex in public may not be something many would feel comfortable with, but no harm still exists by the act.

GPS_Flex said:
How about if I went into a library and began to scream at the top of my lungs while you were trying to read a book or study? Should I be arrested?
Click to expand...
No. How about a ticket for disturbing the peace? Why waste our time with a physical assault and a jail sentence that punishes the tax payers, when we can simply give a citation?

GPS_Flex said:
What if I decided to get naked and run across the field at a sporting event? Should I be arrested?
Click to expand...
Trespassing citation maybe? Naked, who cares? It's not like we are seeing anything we haven't seen before. Get over it.

GPS_Flex said:
There is a difference between public and private. There are no laws against dancing, having sex, getting naked or screaming at the top of your lungs but there are laws that prohibit where you can and can’t do it.
Click to expand...

Whether it is public or private is not as significant in terms of a crime as whether an act causes harm to an innocent person. You may have the freedom of speech to yell "Fire" in a theatre, but if you cause people to be trampled to death you should be responsible for that, not for your right to express yourself. If you threaten a stranger with his life, he may be justified to take your own. Authorisation to do something is not good enough, we must be responsible for damage it causes.
 
Last edited:
Caine said:
How do "the people" express their determination as a solidary unit?

Or are you suggesting that if I arrest for drunk driving and they are drunk and their judgement is already impaired and they claim they are not drunk they are free to say screw you You can't arrest me and I have to say, "Well, my power rests in you so have a nice day and please kill some people on your drive home."

See how your response of rhetoric is a failure to address the question?
Click to expand...

Invalid Comparison logical fallacy in comparing a crime that has a victim to victimless crimes like dancing at a memorial. Try again with a different comparison.

The right is an individual right like all protected rights in the Constitution of the United States and state Constitutions. Invalid comparison logical fallacy.

I'm going to help you out with the definitions of rhetoric and law because you really appear to be confused between the two.
rhet·o·ric
   [ret-er-ik]
–noun
1.
(in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.
Click to expand...

law
1    [law]
–noun
2.
any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution. Compare bylaw, statute law.
Click to expand...

I quoted the Constitutions which is law not rhetoric.

Care to actually answer my question that I posed prior? I'll help you out so you can't say you didn't see it.

Do you or do you not support the protected right of the people to being the final authority on government?
 
Last edited:
empireofreason said:
I doubt you'd do this. But, as long as you cleaned up after yourself, what harm can proven? This is where morality has attempted to assert itself as law. Two very different things. Sex in public may not be something many would feel comfortable with, but no harm still exists by the act.

No. How about a ticket for disturbing the peace? Why waste our time with a physical assault and a jail sentence that punishes the tax payers, when we can simply give a citation?


Trespassing citation maybe? Naked, who cares? It's not like we are seeing anything we haven't seen before. Get over it.



Whether it is public or private is not as significant in terms of a crime as whether an act causes harm to an innocent person. You may have the freedom of speech to yell "Fire" in a theatre, but if you cause people to be trampled to death you should be responsible for that, not for your right to express yourself. If you threaten a stranger with his life, he may be justified to take your own. Authorisation to do something is not good enough, we must be responsible for damage it causes.
Click to expand...

Do you condemn Islam as evil then?
 
GPS_Flex said:
No, it points out that the first to rush to Nazi comparisons loses the argument, loser.
Click to expand...

Because the argument has the word Nazi in it, it's a fallacy. This is self-obvious that such reasoning is flawed. You can't say that, na na na, na na. How childish of an argument!
 
empireofreason said:
Because the argument has the word Nazi in it, it's a fallacy. This is self-obvious that such reasoning is flawed. You can't say that, na na na, na na. How childish of an argument!
Click to expand...

Call it what you will. You made comparisons to Nazism in record time and even went so far as to compare the police who arrest lawbreakers to those who put Jews in ovens. Your comparisons were actually more troll like than anything but trolls invoke Godwin’s Law all the time.
 
GPS_Flex said:
We could make a new thread debating the effects of second hand smoke but I’ll concede that those weren’t the best examples.

What if I decided to have sex with my partner on the Lincoln Memorial where everyone could see? Should I be arrested?

How about if I went into a library and began to scream at the top of my lungs while you were trying to read a book or study? Should I be arrested?

What if I decided to get naked and run across the field at a sporting event? Should I be arrested?

There is a difference between public and private. There are no laws against dancing, having sex, getting naked or screaming at the top of your lungs but there are laws that prohibit where you can and can’t do it.
Click to expand...

None of the above is an example of free speech.
 
empireofreason said:
No, but they have many intellectual disabiilties when it comes to women's rights and nudity.
Click to expand...

So, you view these cops as equal to Nazis who put Jews into ovens because they arrested people who broke the law but you consider it “intellectual disabilities” when it comes to Islam where such public actions would likely bring about years in prison or a possible death penalty.

What is your religious or political affiliation? You obviously lack the ability to apply logic to an issue in a scientific manner so it must be religion or politics that drive your illogical arguments. Which is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom