08-05-2021, 11:00 AM
(08-05-2021, 08:38 AM)GMDino Wrote: Some of you have presented good counter arguments to one of the article posted.
The fact that no one is defending any of the other examples should tell you all you need to know.
Quote:I do not like "Free speech zones" for protests any more than I like laws keeping citizens from filming public servants doing their job. And while I certainly don't want police officers being attacked while doing their job I have problems with attempts like this.
Attempts like ensuring people filming stay a safe distance away from law enforcement doing its job? No one is being prevented from filming because of this, so what possible issue could you have with it?
Quote:I just wish some people (here and not on the board) defend the FIRST Amendment as strongly as they do the 2nd. One would think that a series of states taking steps to make police officers a "protected class" would fall under the same "slippery slope" argument used for every attempt to pass any gun law.
An interesting assertion. Maybe produce one example of a person not defending the 1st amendment? You don't even have to confine yourself to this thread, find just one example of a person advocating for limitations on the 1st.
Quote:And there a lot of "well what about..." to get to where nothing could go wrong with this because of some created scenario.
This sentence doesn't make any sense.
Quote:But "just do what the officer says and let the courts settle it" falls flat with the overwhelming examples of police lying in reports, not using their own cameras, refusing to release camera footage and, not in the least, "qualified immunity". Which was touted as a job "benefit" in one NH town.
See, this is why your protestations about supporting law enforcement are directly contradicted by your own words. "Overwhelming" examples? You think law enforcement officer lie on their reports on a frequent basis? You really think that a whole profession routinely conducts themselves in as unprofessional, and downright criminal, manner as to lie on their reports? Seriously? Have some LEO's lied, absolutely. Is it an "overwhelming" amount? Not even close. Provide any proof that LEO's lying on reports is a common occurrence.
Quote:While you sit in jail even if the officer was wrong and they get paid leave at the very worst? Because it is your word against theirs?
Wanna put both in jail or let both be free while the case is decided...sure.
The ignorance of the process you display here is troubling for a person who likes to discuss the subject as often as you do. If you are arrested you will see a judge within a short time frame. Time varies but it's typically two business days from time of detention. At that time the judge will either release you OR, set bond (which nowadays you don't even have to have 10% to bond out with a bailsman), or remand you to custody awaiting trial. Of these options bail being set is the most common, followed by OR release and then, way down the line, is being remanded. If you were arrested for a misdemeanor and you don't have a substantial record (even with a record now) you will be either released OR or a very low bail will be set. Even violent felonies will likely qualify for bail release, or house arrest, unless the person has an extensive criminal history.
So, quite simply, you're either displaying a marked amount of ignorance on this subject or your engaging in hyperbole to try and make a point. The first weakens your position for obvious reasons and the second would show how weak you know your position to be that you have to falsify "evidence" to support it. Neither is very appealing in any event.
Quote:"All men are created equal"...indeed.
A better way to put it would be to say all men will be treated equal. To what extent that actually happens is certainly a topic for discussion.
