Hossage Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Keep worshipping your statist pig masters. Do you think you are going to get me to conform because of your post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig1Hunter Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Police have no legal standing to arrest you for speeding or jaywalking. Firstly, the supreme court found a legal right to travel in the constitution. Secondly, since no person can claim you damaged then in any way, a jury cannot convict you. The police officer supports the legal fiction of the government, not a person. Police pull you over for revenue. Government doesnt give a crap if you jaywalk or not. They just want a reason to have a law and enforce it. Thats how they get paid. Thats how the huge legal and prison system exists. Not for you, for itself. Stupid pigs, stupid laws, and stupid government makes people want to flaunt the rules and act out in any way they can. This black girl thought she was being brave by taking on the annoying and oppressive system we live in, first by sauntering across the road in the way that people always do in the ghetto, and secondly by disrespecting the cop. I disrespect cops every chance I get. You cant make people better by hurting them. Yeah, I'm sure you do. Like calling them pigs under an anonymous screenname on a message board. Real tough. Also, I'd like to point out the obvious to you. The officer wasn't arresting her for jaywalking. He was doing his lawful duty by enforcing a law enacted by a legitimate representative government. When she resisted this is when it turned into a criminal, arrestable offense. There are ways of fighting such perceived injustices as the enforcement of a law you claim trivial. It's called court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hossage Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Thank you for adding your completely anonymous opinion upon the subject of my nonexistent credibility and anonymous internet toughness. If there is any other topic less meaningful upon which which you could opine, I would be interested. Perhaps we may converse about unicorns some other time. You have failed to point out the obvious to me. The officer was arresting her for jaywalking. He wasnt going to cuff her for that, but he was arresting her. He was not acting in a lawful manner even if you assume our government is legitimate, which it isnt. I didnt sign the constitution. He was not acting in a legal manner because he has no legal standing to arrest you for jaywalking. he is a representative of the government. She did not hurt the government by jaywalking. You are wrong that it is possible to fight this in court. Once you enter a plea, you give the court the legal standing to decide your guilt or innocence. Without it, they do not have that legal standing if you do not consent to trial, because there is no defendant. The cop is not a defendant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Yeah, I'm sure you do. Like calling them pigs under an anonymous screenname on a message board. Real tough. Also, I'd like to point out the obvious to you. The officer wasn't arresting her for jaywalking. He was doing his lawful duty by enforcing a law enacted by a legitimate representative government. When she resisted this is when it turned into a criminal, arrestable offense. There are ways of fighting such perceived injustices as the enforcement of a law you claim trivial. It's called court. Me thinks your wasting your time on this guy. He probably wears a t-shirt with "death to pigs" on the front and "power to the people " on the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Me thinks your wasting your time on this guy. He probably wears a t-shirt with "death to pigs" on the front and "power to the people " on the back. More like a t-shirt that says, "TROLL" in big, bold font. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hossage Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 I posted a well-defended point of view, and you guys responded by calling me names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 More like a t-shirt that says, "TROLL" in big, bold font. I give him a week on here till he"shows the man" and they take away his good behavior computer privilege time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 I posted a well-defended point of view, and you guys responded by calling me names. It wasn't a well-defended point of view. You stated that we had a constitutional right to travel, but our constitutional rights only go so far. Once our actions can harm others, our "right" to that action goes out the window. Jaywalking endangers the drivers and passengers of motor vehicles, so you get ticketed for doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hossage Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Endangering them isnt harming them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Endangering them isnt harming them. Read up a bit. The potential for harm matters much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Thats it? You must be coming down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hossage Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Jim, you seem to have this image of me as some kind of rebellions communist/hippie who is doing this for spite. That isnt the case at all. I think our government is doing more harm than good in many different ways, and I want to say so. Its not personal. The potential for harm doesnt bring forward an accuser with legal standing. If I were a lawyer or a law enforcement agent, there is no way I would feel that way I do now, because I would be supported by this system. If a lawyer argues the legal standing of a cop, they are immediately shunned, because they are working against the money making legal system. The legal system exists for itself, not for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB27 Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Jim, you seem to have this image of me as some kind of rebellions communist/hippie who is doing this for spite. That isnt the case at all. I think our government is doing more harm than good in many different ways, and I want to say so. Its not personal. The potential for harm doesnt bring forward an accuser with legal standing. If I were a lawyer or a law enforcement agent, there is no way I would feel that way I do now, because I would be supported by this system. If a lawyer argues the legal standing of a cop, they are immediately shunned, because they are working against the money making legal system. The legal system exists for itself, not for you. Dude, go hit the bong, pipe, needle, bottle, or whatever it is again..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 The potential for harm doesnt bring forward an accuser with legal standing. If I were a lawyer or a law enforcement agent, there is no way I would feel that way I do now, because I would be supported by this system. If a lawyer argues the legal standing of a cop, they are immediately shunned, because they are working against the money making legal system. The legal system exists for itself, not for you. Ever hear of criminal negligence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB27 Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Ever hear of criminal negligence? Based on his reasoning, every law you mention is invalid because of the cop needing to get paid or something. What if the cop was a volunteer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Endangering them isnt harming them. Jim, you seem to have this image of me as some kind of rebellions communist/hippie who is doing this for spite. That isnt the case at all. I think our government is doing more harm than good in many different ways, and I want to say so. Its not personal. The potential for harm doesnt bring forward an accuser with legal standing. If I were a lawyer or a law enforcement agent, there is no way I would feel that way I do now, because I would be supported by this system. If a lawyer argues the legal standing of a cop, they are immediately shunned, because they are working against the money making legal system. The legal system exists for itself, not for you. So you take a "no harm, no foul" approach to the legal system? Nobody got hurt so who cares? Have you ever thought for a minute that the laws are in place for public safety? Oh I suppose if someone was driving up and down your street at 100MPH you would object to to him getting a ticket because it's a revenue scam. Wait till he kills someone, then we can act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Based on his reasoning, every law you mention is invalid because of the cop needing to get paid or something. What if the cop was a volunteer? People volunteer to deal with that kind of ****? You couldn't pay me enough to be a cop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hossage Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Based on his reasoning, every law you mention is invalid because of the cop needing to get paid or something. What if the cop was a volunteer? Wrong. In criminal law, an accuser must be brought forward for a jury to convict. The government can only have legal standing if it is acting to secure the rights of others. Normally that language is similar to the following in the Declearation of Independence: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Please research the issue of legal standing. Courts frequently rule that the defendant does not consent to trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hossage Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 So you take a "no harm, no foul" approach to the legal system? Nobody got hurt so who cares? Have you ever thought for a minute that the laws are in place for public safety? Oh I suppose if someone was driving up and down your street at 100MPH you would object to to him getting a ticket because it's a revenue scam. Wait till he kills someone, then we can act. Jim, it is not my approach to the law, it is the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Wrong. In criminal law, an accuser must be brought forward for a jury to convict. The government can only have legal standing if it is acting to secure the rights of others. Normally that language is similar to the following in the Declearation of Independence: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Please research the issue of legal standing. Courts frequently rule that the defendant does not consent to trial. Do you know who prosecutors represent? The accusers are the people of the state of New York, or the people of a certain county. It's a collective accusation made by "the people." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts