Gotta draw the line somewhere.
211 F water is really hot.
212 F water is boiling.
Is water brainwashed too?
P
- Thread starter 101st
- Start date
Gotta draw the line somewhere.
211 F water is really hot.
212 F water is boiling.
Is water brainwashed too?
P
Altitude might say different.
17 years, 364 days old....illegal.
24 hours later....free game for BFC!
How about 98, 97, 96, 95, etc?
Standing on your property line, okay. Crossing one inch over your line, trespassing...
Arbitrary BS, who are you to draw that line?
Why don't we try this analysis...
16 is the age of consent in my state (Ohio), so 15 years and 364 days and it is a crime, but 16 and it is not a crime. How arbitrary... How far do you want to roll that back and reduce it? If the guy gets off for the girl at 15 years and 364 days, what happens when the guy with the 15 years 363 days girl screams it wasn't fair and that if the other guy was given slack for one day he should get slack for two days. The next thing you know, there are guys in their 50s arguing that they should get slack for the 13 year old or the 12 year old.
Boundaries are drawn somewhere and have to be drawn somewhere. If you don't like where society draws boundaries then go find a society to your liking, work within the constitutional and procedural framework to change the boundaries of the society where you reside, or go somewhere else and start your own society. There is no option of "Continue to live in our society and enjoy its benefits while flagrantly disobeying laws and violating boundaries that you find personally distasteful or invalid."
Actually the age of consent is most states is 16.
So let me clear up some of my thoughts on this. I pay car insurance, not because I "have to.'' I do because I think it's a good idea and it covers me if I'm in a collision with personal injury or property damage. I don't have to worry about paying a debt to society. I've already been paying.
I don't drive 65 in a 30 or 35. Why? Because It's a congested area and I would not want to injure anyone trying to cross the road. It's not a law but is an ordinance. This is where I have the issue with said deputy ordering the bad perp out of the truck for an arrest. It is not legal. Dumb perp should have remained in the truck and received his fine/s. He'd be alive today, even though this low life of prior convictions, would be better off where he is. He demonstrated that with his handling the deputy. He should have let the unlawful arrest occur and sued afterwards.
Some have mentioned getting pulled over in speed traps. They are called traps for a reason. It's pure extorsion from people, who need to make a living to feed their families.
I do believe speed ordinances in populated areas are warranted. I don't believe it to be right for a peace officer to pull someone over for 5 over in a 30.
How about a simple flash of the lights and a hand motion of slow down with a wave. It's quite easy to find oneself going a bit over. Especially coming down a hill into said speed zone. If someone is traveling 5-10 over, and recklessly driving, let the fines ensue.
I am not okay with the cops who think they are enforcing law, when in fact are infringing on peoples rights with illegal arrests, warrantless searches and the like. This is where I state, know your rights and stand on them.
I don't drive 65 in a 30 or 35. Why? Because It's a congested area and I would not want to injure anyone trying to cross the road. It's not a law but is an ordinance. This is where I have the issue with said deputy ordering the bad perp out of the truck for an arrest. It is not legal. Dumb perp should have remained in the truck and received his fine/s. He'd be alive today, even though this low life of prior convictions, would be better off where he is. He demonstrated that with his handling the deputy. He should have let the unlawful arrest occur and sued afterwards.
Some have mentioned getting pulled over in speed traps. They are called traps for a reason. It's pure extorsion from people, who need to make a living to feed their families.
I do believe speed ordinances in populated areas are warranted. I don't believe it to be right for a peace officer to pull someone over for 5 over in a 30.
How about a simple flash of the lights and a hand motion of slow down with a wave. It's quite easy to find oneself going a bit over. Especially coming down a hill into said speed zone. If someone is traveling 5-10 over, and recklessly driving, let the fines ensue.
I am not okay with the cops who think they are enforcing law, when in fact are infringing on peoples rights with illegal arrests, warrantless searches and the like. This is where I state, know your rights and stand on them.
Definition of LIMIT
something that bounds, restrains, or confines; the utmost extent; a geographic or political boundary… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com Definition of SPEED LIMIT
the maximum or minimum speed permitted by law in a given area under specified circumstances… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com I'll let you in on a secret. I have, on occasion, driving 90 mph, 95 mph, even up to 110 mph, [the fastest I recall ever driving was 111 mph], on bright clear days on rural interstates with few other people around, and I have never been ticketed. I also drove 110 mph + in Germany, but that is another matter.
I have never had a speeding ticket in my entire life, but I just admitted I have not only sped, but in some instances significantly exceeded the posted limits. My speeds were still safe for conditions and I was selective and discerning about where to drive at such speeds.
Driving 50 mph through a flashing school zone, expect to be pulled over and possibly arrested... Driving 110 mph on some rural interstate in a prairie state on a clear summer day, much less likely.
I recall the dorm situation at university. The floor resident assistant made it clear to us, "this is a substance free floor, which means if I see you with alcohol you will be written up, if I find you with alcohol you will be written up, but I am not pounding on doors trying to do spot checks to find alcohol. If you're in your room having a beer and quietly watching a movie, I won't write you up because I won't ever know and I have no reason to come to your room. If you're running around the hallways naked while drunk, guess who is getting written up. If I have to pound on your door because of noise complaints and I see bottles, guess who is getting written up."
Incidentally, there was one guy who ran around the place naked while drunk, no it wasn't me, and yes I believe he got written up.
Last edited:
The idiots in this thread have dragged it into the weeds regarding speed limits, marked units exceeding such limits, privileges vs. rights, etc.
None of this BS is anything but straw man obfuscation because it has nothing to do with the facts that lead to the dumb ass being shot.
Did he exceed the speed limit by passing a marked police unit at over 100 MPH? Officer says yes, dumb ass never disputed that.
Is the stop and arrest authorized by law? Yes it is. Fact. Whether or not you think it is fair or right has absolutely nothing to do with this incident. That's just you being argumentative because of your "feels."
Did the dumb ass fail to comply with the officer's orders? Yes, he failed to do as so ordered. Fact. Whether or not you "feel" the officer's orders or "tone" were acceptable to you, has nothing to do with the fact that he was within the law to do so.
Referencing the dumb asses previous incarceration as an "excuse" for his actions has absolutely no bearing upon his need to comply with the officer's instructions. Using that is no different than the liberal mindset who excuses anyone's criminal behavior by saying his actions are a result of his upbringing or his "social environment." One is responsible for one's actions, you can't blame it on the fact that you had no daddy in your household.
After being told he was under arrest did the dumb ass resist arrest? Yes, he did. Fact.
Did the dumb ass escalate his resistance to the point of trying to choke the officer and say "Yeah, bitch" while doing so? Yes he did. Fact.
Did the dumb ass get shot after the officer tried various non-lethal methods of force? Yes he did. Fact.
Go ahead and argue the facts until you are blue in the face, it still isn't going to change them no matter how strongly you "feel."
None of this BS is anything but straw man obfuscation because it has nothing to do with the facts that lead to the dumb ass being shot.
Did he exceed the speed limit by passing a marked police unit at over 100 MPH? Officer says yes, dumb ass never disputed that.
Is the stop and arrest authorized by law? Yes it is. Fact. Whether or not you think it is fair or right has absolutely nothing to do with this incident. That's just you being argumentative because of your "feels."
Did the dumb ass fail to comply with the officer's orders? Yes, he failed to do as so ordered. Fact. Whether or not you "feel" the officer's orders or "tone" were acceptable to you, has nothing to do with the fact that he was within the law to do so.
Referencing the dumb asses previous incarceration as an "excuse" for his actions has absolutely no bearing upon his need to comply with the officer's instructions. Using that is no different than the liberal mindset who excuses anyone's criminal behavior by saying his actions are a result of his upbringing or his "social environment." One is responsible for one's actions, you can't blame it on the fact that you had no daddy in your household.
After being told he was under arrest did the dumb ass resist arrest? Yes, he did. Fact.
Did the dumb ass escalate his resistance to the point of trying to choke the officer and say "Yeah, bitch" while doing so? Yes he did. Fact.
Did the dumb ass get shot after the officer tried various non-lethal methods of force? Yes he did. Fact.
Go ahead and argue the facts until you are blue in the face, it still isn't going to change them no matter how strongly you "feel."
Epic pointless, horse beating thread. It is so dead, horse is decomposing.
I'm out too.
I'm out too.
What about "98, 97, 96..."?? Is it that difficult to follow what I have previously stated?
"Arbitrary BS, who are you to draw the line?"
Spoken like a true statist. Good job at showing your indoctrination.
Definitely need more concrete!!
And I will bet my shoe size is larger than yours. 14 W. Yours is probably 9 M. Dainty as they are.
That may be true but the “sovereign citizen” position has never won in court. Partly because it’s such an oddly disparate set of conjectures and partly because none of it is based in actual law.
The crux of what I have seen from sovcit's is that they can assume they operate under marine law. That we should still be under the AoC. And that the sheriff is the highest law in the land. Yet, they pull over whenever a cop lights them up.
Having big feet somehow makes your low IQ score something to be proud of?
Let me guess, you are named after Ronald McDonald?
You're a clown. Stay in the slow lane.
They say the most common denominator of Sovereign Citizens is most are on meth.
The only one I knew was a methhead.
Sovereigns fall into two categories. The confused/misled who think they can buy a "kit" to learn how to avoid having to need license plates and how to pay off their tax debts with a "bond" drawn against the account the corporation called the IRS opened in their name when they were born with their name in ALL CAPITALS, and the absolute scumbags who know damn well what they are doing and have no regard for anybody else.
I can point you to plenty of situations where sovereigns waited for some family to go on vacation, broke the locks on a house, changed the locks, falsified a "sovereign deed" and began squatting in the house, causing the rightful owners to incur tens of thousands in legal fees to get a court order to evict the sovereigns. Sovereigns engage in what I call "paperwork terrorism" in most court proceedings they are involved in. They threaten police, judges, prosecutors, lawyers, witnesses, jurors, etc.
Having a sovereign citizen in your community is always going to be a nightmare, they will trespass on a farmer's land, steal/damage his crops, steal his livestock, claim they are a "free man living on the land," state they have a "right to homestead," or insist, "I am traveling, I am roaming, this is a free range, they cannot fence it." They will then cite various international treaties to explain their right to use lethal force against anybody who tries to stop them, they make appeals to the magna carta, they try to use personal IOUs backed by nothing to pay their debts or their fines.
Sovereigns are scum.
I would say Sovereigns are in the same boat as MS-13 or the Aryan Brotherhood. If society ended tomorrow and I identified a guy with MS-13 face tattoos or Aryan Brotherhood forehead tattoos on my land, 1200 yards away and coming in my direction, he wouldn't get a conversation, he wouldn't be allowed to get much closer, and he wouldn't get a warning, the property line was his one and only warning, he's going down. If there were a universal tattoo that Sovereign Citizens marked themselves with that set them apart as being Sovereign Citizens, in a world where order had just broken down, I would absolutely support ending SCs on sight/identification, they are just that dangerous.
Sovereign Citizens are basically the same way. The worst ones are when you add Aryan ideology or Black Liberation/Power into the ideology and you wind up with an Aryan Sovereign Citizen or a Black Moorish Temple or Nation of Islam Sovereign Citizen.
Sovereign Citizens are a threat to any decent people in the communities where they reside.
Are you still posting on this thread? Despite the ass-kicking you’ve been taking since post 225?
Gutsy or stupid, I can’t decide.
p
I answered the question you asked me. I’m waiting for you to do the same. You’ve been dodging the questions, poorly. How many posts have you made after post 225?
You've had ample opportunity to answer the question.
Keep ignoring the question and take the L. It’s obvious.
P
That was already answered previously with the codified law that allows a cop to exceed the speed limit while on duty in pursuit of a suspect. You just don't want to accept that.
"I reject your reality and supplant it with one of my own choosing."
And you have only proven for the umpteenth time that you excel only at being capable of a sandbox tantrum. Probably you should wash your face and hands, like mommy and daddy told you to do. Dinner is ready.
Thank you. Your cowardice is exactly what I expected.
Get in the boxcar, bootlicker.
P
Yes, obey and live, we all get that. Its preached over and over, to the point we pay 50% of taxes to govt, watch election interference, watch our rights squeeeeezed. Obey, obey, obey.....
Nobody here is going to miss the guy! He was probably a douche maximus. I dont know, and I dont care! Guess who will be paying the lawsuit and/or attorney fees, ....WE!
I think the problem is, who started the hostilities, who finished the hostilities, and who will get to walk away? Can you do this in your job? Can a store clerk do this to protect the goods in their store?
Nobody cares about "feels"...its about right, wrong, and injustice. The govt has such an endless supply of your check, my check, we's check, that 95% of people have to take plea bargains or........obey, obey, obey! How much more "up the ass" should a people endure? Name the imaginary "line" for you. Trannies in your daughters sports isnt enough, killed for speeding isnt enough....what is it?
Are you changing the conditions to create a straw boss? If a store clerk is being choked to the point of being dead, then he or she can do what it takes to stop the deadly threat against him or her.
That's the best you can do? I guess I shouldn't have expected more from a low IQ sasquatch. Or do you identify as a yeti?
Pretty much. Kinda like a dog. You have a boxer, Shepard, Labrador and Chihuahua to name a few. So sasquatch, yeti, swamp ape and few others are probably just different breads
Clue:
As one of the participants is employed by the system wouldn't he, in fact, be the system?
R
Copy.
We‘re pretty much limited to the garden variety ‘squatch here in Oregon.
P
And you as a participant existing within the system are also. So you are the system.
Be that as it may, this esoteric discussion about things bigger than the incident really has no bearing on the facts of the incident. It's just an effort to avoid the obvious which is pointed out to you in the thread title.
The system is unfair, oh boo hoo.
So is life.
He thinks I am a chatbot. Or an FBI agent. Or some other made up nonsense. Completely clueless. Not worth have any dialogue with, just a silly weasel.
You may be reaching a bit.
I missed my 1099.
Life being not fair: cancer
I don't think i have to show examples of things under "control" that aren't fair.
One can be adjusted.
If there is desire...
R
Sorry about cancer.
How much are you going to blame "the system" for the dumb ass being ventilated or are his actions his to own? ("play stupid, win stupid").
It really is that simple.
Clearly you've reach a conclusion before asking a question.
I've never absolved dumb ass in any post in this thread.
By my count there were 2 now three.
Some people don't think implicit bias be like it is, but it do.
R
Never said you did. The "you" pertains to those that have. Apparently I should have been more specific.
Implicit bias is all around. It ain't a one way street.
As I said I'm not going to indulge the retarded sovcit legal theories.
You guys are the ultimate expression of the phrase "shithouse lawyer"
Pharmseller beat me to it. Both, I have the advantage of dual citizenship. Now, if I could just start getting royalties of those coolers and travel mugs....
Cop should have never gotten that close.
9 pages of epic horseshit.
Oops, I posted again.
What a fucking cuck! Someone please put him out of my misery.
LOL @96coal449 and all other sovcit dumbasses
FF to 11:25 for the fireworks on this one
And Judge Simpson delivering a master class on how to destroy your stupid arguments
FF to 11:25 for the fireworks on this one
And Judge Simpson delivering a master class on how to destroy your stupid arguments
Last edited:
