Don't tase me bro!

[jgbkab]

Vague, you have been wrong about every single law you mentioned ... how much more specific can I get other than learn about the laws before you try to debate them.

Start with the freedom of speech, then work your way toward your local traffic laws, that's as specific as I can get since you clearly know none of them.

KK, give it up...really. I mean it takes two freaking seconds to Google. SW has been correct on the laws...you have not. All you have to do is read summaries of the hundreds of court cases concerning Federal Statutes. Don't guess the answers, just look them up or say that you don't know. It looks so much better than getting smacked around like a Rocky King v. Rick Flair.

NOBODY FUCKING VOTES ON LOCAL TRAFFIC LAWS. Didn't you say that you don't drive or have a license? Why the hell would you be voting on traffic laws? Please let it go for your own sake. This is getting bad for you.

You vote on the law makers, thus you vote for the laws. if you don't like the laws you can then make petitions and go through the proper channels to get changes to them on the ballot. You have no clue what you are talking about at this point either. All laws can be changed by the public within safety limits set by those you chose to put into office.

Lastly, post one such case and I will show you where the "special circumstances" exist that completely change the situation.

Simple matter really, cops protect us from complete chaos, without them we are all screwed. Traffic laws protect me as a pedestrian, and I would actually be happier to see every single person who runs a red light, drives intoxicated, or speeds just shot. You morons who drive are let off too easy with fines.

You're fucking shifting again. You didn't say that we change the laws you said that we vote on the laws which is absolute bullshit. I told you to bow out, fucking idiot. But instead you chose to be dishonest and change your position. My position was that we vote on the lawmakers...and now you want to "adopt" my position and try to use it against me. You would fucking blow up a polygraph.

Post one such case of what? There are loopholes to all laws. No fucking law is bulletproof. That's why we have lawyers that argue the law and judges that interpret the law. Wow, you are really dense.

You are really psycho. You want traffic violators shot. I am really running out of adjectives to describe your stupidity. Maybe stupid people need to be shot. And if we morons are let off too easily, just vote in some traffic laws where the punishment is a firing squad.

 

[jgbkab]

Try this, go into a business and call the owner a "fucking retard" ... then you will see that freedom of speech does not extend into privately owned and operated institutions/businesses/etc., period.

Ahhh, but can he be arrested and charged with a crime? Can he file a lawsuit citing his First Amendment rights?

he could file, but more than likely it would get laughed out of court

But he couldn't be arrested.

 

[KittenKoder]

Ok. We'll start with Freedom of Speech.

The Government ensures my right to the level of speech deemed acceptable to the people of th United States of America.

The US Message Board extends the priviledge of speech to me at a level acceptable to the US Message board.

You are sorely confused that there is any actual law regarding some all encompassing freedom of speech. You begin from a flawed premise.

We are free to speak here. Permitted by the US Message Board, by their legal right to do so. They are legally permitted to grant me freedom of speech here. To start from the position that there is no freedom of speech is as backwards and ignorant as one can get. This message board, as do most, begins with the premise of SPEECH. You understand that we are supposed to speak here? The rules are few and lightly enforced. This board promotes speech, it does not set out to stiffle it.

You are on the wrong side of over 200 years of American speech. You are the threat to our foundation.

Try this, go into a business and call the owner a "fucking retard" ... then you will see that freedom of speech does not extend into privately owned and operated institutions/businesses/etc., period.

Ahhh, but can he be arrested and charged with a crime? Can he file a lawsuit citing his First Amendment rights?

Aaah, he can if he does not leave. Also there are many cases in which they can be arrested, one is personal threats, another is inciting violence. But he can be banned from the place if the owner/operator wishes, even if it's just for saying something they don't like. Forums, even email servers, can censor anything they wish as well.

 

[DiveCon]

Let's summarize this beginners lesson in law.

Texas code regarding traffic code enforcement on private property:


Texas Transportation Code - Section 542.005. Rules On Private Property - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws



Here is a nice summary of why Kitty and Dive are wrong about traffic violators being criminals. Simple traffic code violations ARE NOT CRIMES. Check your state and local regs to see the seperation of traffic code from criminal code.


HowStuffWorks "How Traffic Tickets Work"



Here is a great page with numerous laws and decisions that demostrate the lawfullness of resisting an unlawful arrest.


Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest


Neither Dive nor Kitty can support their positions, or refuse to. Neither can they refute the supported facts of law, as presented, with complete support.

They entered this argument with the same old "Cops are always right. The law says cops are always right." imaginary law.

Where is your law Kitty? Where is the "cops are always right and immune to the law" Law? Where is it Kitty? Only in your scared little head?

there was no illegal arrest
he was doing it as part of a traffic stop

Support this with a fact. Just one fact.

Demonstrate, using all the evidence and law you have, that this was a legal traffic stop.

Can you support your claim or are you just trolling?

fuck off
you have no proof it wasnt a legal arrest
the story doesnt say why they were checking out this car

 

[Sweet Willy]

KK, give it up...really. I mean it takes two freaking seconds to Google. SW has been correct on the laws...you have not. All you have to do is read summaries of the hundreds of court cases concerning Federal Statutes. Don't guess the answers, just look them up or say that you don't know. It looks so much better than getting smacked around like a Rocky King v. Rick Flair.

NOBODY FUCKING VOTES ON LOCAL TRAFFIC LAWS. Didn't you say that you don't drive or have a license? Why the hell would you be voting on traffic laws? Please let it go for your own sake. This is getting bad for you.

You vote on the law makers, thus you vote for the laws. if you don't like the laws you can then make petitions and go through the proper channels to get changes to them on the ballot. You have no clue what you are talking about at this point either. All laws can be changed by the public within safety limits set by those you chose to put into office.

Lastly, post one such case and I will show you where the "special circumstances" exist that completely change the situation.

Simple matter really, cops protect us from complete chaos, without them we are all screwed. Traffic laws protect me as a pedestrian, and I would actually be happier to see every single person who runs a red light, drives intoxicated, or speeds just shot. You morons who drive are let off too easy with fines.

You're fucking shifting again. You didn't say that we change the laws you said that we vote on the laws which is absolute bullshit. I told you to bow out, fucking idiot. But instead you chose to be dishonest and change your position. My position was that we vote on the lawmakers...and now you want to "adopt" my position and try to use it against me. You would fucking blow up a polygraph.

Post one such case of what? There are loopholes to all laws. No fucking law is bulletproof. That's why we have lawyers that argue the law and judges that interpret the law. Wow, you are really dense.

You are really psycho. You want traffic violators shot. I am really running out of adjectives to describe your stupidity. Maybe stupid people need to be shot. And if we morons are let off too easily, just vote in some traffic laws where the punishment is a firing squad.

Getting angry with them won't help. They're already scared to death. Every position Kitty has taken has only been supportd by her own fear. There is no actual support for what she says. Only how she would like it to be so she can feel safe. She feels safe on the internet so it's the only place she can claim a little self confidence, although the attempts are weak.

Just remember, if you ever happen across either of these people a little "boo" will get them running.

 

[DiveCon]

Ahhh, but can he be arrested and charged with a crime? Can he file a lawsuit citing his First Amendment rights?

he could file, but more than likely it would get laughed out of court

But he couldn't be arrested.

of course he could be arrested
if he didnt leave, he could be arrested for tresspassing

 

[DiveCon]

You vote on the law makers, thus you vote for the laws. if you don't like the laws you can then make petitions and go through the proper channels to get changes to them on the ballot. You have no clue what you are talking about at this point either. All laws can be changed by the public within safety limits set by those you chose to put into office.

Lastly, post one such case and I will show you where the "special circumstances" exist that completely change the situation.

Simple matter really, cops protect us from complete chaos, without them we are all screwed. Traffic laws protect me as a pedestrian, and I would actually be happier to see every single person who runs a red light, drives intoxicated, or speeds just shot. You morons who drive are let off too easy with fines.

You're fucking shifting again. You didn't say that we change the laws you said that we vote on the laws which is absolute bullshit. I told you to bow out, fucking idiot. But instead you chose to be dishonest and change your position. My position was that we vote on the lawmakers...and now you want to "adopt" my position and try to use it against me. You would fucking blow up a polygraph.

Post one such case of what? There are loopholes to all laws. No fucking law is bulletproof. That's why we have lawyers that argue the law and judges that interpret the law. Wow, you are really dense.

You are really psycho. You want traffic violators shot. I am really running out of adjectives to describe your stupidity. Maybe stupid people need to be shot. And if we morons are let off too easily, just vote in some traffic laws where the punishment is a firing squad.

Getting angry with them won't help. They're already scared to death. Every position Kitty has taken has only been supportd by her own fear. There is no actual support for what she says. Only how she would like it to be so she can feel safe. She feels safe on the internet so it's the only place she can claim a little self confidence, although the attempts are weak.

Just remember, if you ever happen across either of these people a little "boo" will get them running.

now whos trolling
asshole

 

[KittenKoder]

You vote on the law makers, thus you vote for the laws. if you don't like the laws you can then make petitions and go through the proper channels to get changes to them on the ballot. You have no clue what you are talking about at this point either. All laws can be changed by the public within safety limits set by those you chose to put into office.

Lastly, post one such case and I will show you where the "special circumstances" exist that completely change the situation.

Simple matter really, cops protect us from complete chaos, without them we are all screwed. Traffic laws protect me as a pedestrian, and I would actually be happier to see every single person who runs a red light, drives intoxicated, or speeds just shot. You morons who drive are let off too easy with fines.

You're fucking shifting again. You didn't say that we change the laws you said that we vote on the laws which is absolute bullshit. I told you to bow out, fucking idiot. But instead you chose to be dishonest and change your position. My position was that we vote on the lawmakers...and now you want to "adopt" my position and try to use it against me. You would fucking blow up a polygraph.

Post one such case of what? There are loopholes to all laws. No fucking law is bulletproof. That's why we have lawyers that argue the law and judges that interpret the law. Wow, you are really dense.

You are really psycho. You want traffic violators shot. I am really running out of adjectives to describe your stupidity. Maybe stupid people need to be shot. And if we morons are let off too easily, just vote in some traffic laws where the punishment is a firing squad.

Getting angry with them won't help. They're already scared to death. Every position Kitty has taken has only been supportd by her own fear. There is no actual support for what she says. Only how she would like it to be so she can feel safe. She feels safe on the internet so it's the only place she can claim a little self confidence, although the attempts are weak.

Just remember, if you ever happen across either of these people a little "boo" will get them running.

Um ... you wouldn't be scared of a 1 to 10 ton lump of metal at high speed ramming into your flesh and blood body? You are more of an idiot than I thought.

 

[Sweet Willy]

there was no illegal arrest
he was doing it as part of a traffic stop

Support this with a fact. Just one fact.

Demonstrate, using all the evidence and law you have, that this was a legal traffic stop.

Can you support your claim or are you just trolling?

fuck off
you have no proof it wasnt a legal arrest
the story doesnt say why they were checking out this car

We are working with the information we have. I have already stated that if the stop was initiated on the public highway, it would be legal. The report indicates that it was initiated in a parking lot.

Do you have any evidence to support your position?

 

[jgbkab]

Try this, go into a business and call the owner a "fucking retard" ... then you will see that freedom of speech does not extend into privately owned and operated institutions/businesses/etc., period.

Ahhh, but can he be arrested and charged with a crime? Can he file a lawsuit citing his First Amendment rights?

Aaah, he can if he does not leave. Also there are many cases in which they can be arrested, one is personal threats, another is inciting violence. But he can be banned from the place if the owner/operator wishes, even if it's just for saying something they don't like. Forums, even email servers, can censor anything they wish as well.

What?!?!?!? That is fucking trespassing...and it has nothing to do with speech. Calling someone a fucking retard is not a fucking personal threat. Banning and arrest and not synonymous. God! Wow! Jeez! Holy Cow!

 

[jgbkab]

he could file, but more than likely it would get laughed out of court

But he couldn't be arrested.

of course he could be arrested
if he didnt leave, he could be arrested for tresspassing

Which has nothing to do with speech.

 

[KittenKoder]

Support this with a fact. Just one fact.

Demonstrate, using all the evidence and law you have, that this was a legal traffic stop.

Can you support your claim or are you just trolling?

fuck off
you have no proof it wasnt a legal arrest
the story doesnt say why they were checking out this car

We are working with the information we have. I have already stated that if the stop was initiated on the public highway, it would be legal. The report indicates that it was initiated in a parking lot.

Do you have any evidence to support your position?

First, most parking lots are still considered public property. Secondly, the location of the crime is more important than where they were stopped for it. Thirdly many owners of private property do not like criminals anyway so would willingly allow the police onto the property. Unless the owner of the lot steps up and states that he did not want the police there, then the arrest is 100% legal.

 

[Sweet Willy]

[
Aaah, he can if he does not leave. Also there are many cases in which they can be arrested, one is personal threats, another is inciting violence. But he can be banned from the place if the owner/operator wishes, even if it's just for saying something they don't like. Forums, even email servers, can censor anything they wish as well.

Here is Kittens tell tale double standard statement. And here is Divecons:

of course he could be arrested
if he didnt leave, he could be arrested for tresspassing

Both posters quickly recognize a property owners right to control his property for tresspass. Until it is a cop.

These people are not advocates of the law. They are advocates of cops, regardless if they are breaking the law.

 

[KittenKoder]

But he couldn't be arrested.

of course he could be arrested
if he didnt leave, he could be arrested for tresspassing

Which has nothing to do with speech.

Aaah .. but it does, being banned from private property for something said.

 

[Sweet Willy]

First, most parking lots are still considered public property.

You are a liar.

A big, fat, LIAR.

Provide any source of information that supports the claim that MOST PARKING LOTS ARE CONSIDERED PUBLIC PROPERTY.

YOU LIE.

 

[KittenKoder]

[
Aaah, he can if he does not leave. Also there are many cases in which they can be arrested, one is personal threats, another is inciting violence. But he can be banned from the place if the owner/operator wishes, even if it's just for saying something they don't like. Forums, even email servers, can censor anything they wish as well.

Here is Kittens tell tale double standard statement. And here is Divecons:

of course he could be arrested
if he didnt leave, he could be arrested for tresspassing

Both posters quickly recognize a property owners right to control his property for tresspass. Until it is a cop.

These people are not advocates of the law. They are advocates of cops, regardless if they are breaking the law.

Really, show where the owner of the private property, beside the criminal, the act of committing a crime by the owner negates that right completely, said they did not want the perps arrested.

 

[jgbkab]

fuck off
you have no proof it wasnt a legal arrest
the story doesnt say why they were checking out this car

We are working with the information we have. I have already stated that if the stop was initiated on the public highway, it would be legal. The report indicates that it was initiated in a parking lot.

Do you have any evidence to support your position?

First, most parking lots are still considered public property. Secondly, the location of the crime is more important than where they were stopped for it. Thirdly many owners of private property do not like criminals anyway so would willingly allow the police onto the property. Unless the owner of the lot steps up and states that he did not want the police there, then the arrest is 100% legal.

The parking lot at the police station? Your local football arena? Or your grocery store? NO, MOST PARKING LOTS ARE NOT PUBLIC PROPERTY! The point is no one knows where the encounter began other than the officer's own admission that it was initiated in the parking lot. And if an owner refuses to let officers onto their private property, that is within their rights.

 

[KittenKoder]

First, most parking lots are still considered public property.

You are a liar.

A big, fat, LIAR.

Provide any source of information that supports the claim that MOST PARKING LOTS ARE CONSIDERED PUBLIC PROPERTY.

YOU LIE.

Most business property lines do not cross into the parking lot, especially when multiple businesses exist on the same lot. Learned that one managing (oddly) a fast food restaurant in the lot of a shopping center.

 

[DiveCon]

But he couldn't be arrested.

of course he could be arrested
if he didnt leave, he could be arrested for tresspassing

Which has nothing to do with speech.

sure it does
you tried to exert your unfounded freedom of speech where you had none
thuse you got kicked out, and when you refused to leave becauyse you were just expressing your "freedom of speech" you got arrested

 

[jgbkab]

of course he could be arrested
if he didnt leave, he could be arrested for tresspassing

Which has nothing to do with speech.

Aaah .. but it does, being banned from private property for something said.

Which is banning and not arrest. Has nothing to do with speech. I think I'm getting dizzy.