Whiskywarrior stand off in NY?

[Ark]

[video=youtube;hrTsZ0L0Pig]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrTsZ0L0Pig[/video]

Things continue to coalesce in the direction of "WW556 is an abusive liar".

 

[Tombs]

Sure, likely I got punked by this guy

But the point I can't seem to get across is; if you're worried about people being pushed too far and doing bad stuff, you could advocate that authorities stop pushing so hard as well as for people not to do bad stuff. Isn't that how de-escalation is done - both sides need to take a step back

There is no way to tell whether the next one will be Rambo

But see, that's common sense. The state does not usually act on common sense, they ram rod things through, and after the women and children they burned alive are dead and gone, they try to brush it under the carpet and pretend it never happened.

 

[T.Lex]

If police enforced the laws less, it would make fewer people criminals.

Gotcha.

Sounds like the Chicago Police Department strategy.

 

[Denny347]

Confirmation biases. People see what props up their own beliefs.

 

[JettaKnight]

Sure, likely I got punked by this guy

But the point I can't seem to get across is; if you're worried about people being pushed too far and doing bad stuff, you could advocate that authorities stop pushing so hard as well as for people not to do bad stuff. Isn't that how de-escalation is done - both sides need to take a step back

There is no way to tell whether the next one will be Rambo

Wait, are you saying that, "this guy is an internet badass and veteran, therefore the police should just take it easy on him?" And what, let him continue to intimidate and abuse his wife?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Wait, are you saying that, "this guy is an internet badass and veteran, therefore the police should just take it easy on him?" And what, let him continue to intimidate and abuse his wife?

I'd never heard of this guy before this thread. Like I said earlier, he seems to be a parody of an "internet badass". If he really is that way in real life, then I'm not surprised to find out that in real life he probably is just another *******.

 

[Tombs]

If police enforced the laws less, it would make fewer people criminals.

Gotcha.

Sounds like the Chicago Police Department strategy.

[video=youtube;R60Xc-RcC9A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R60Xc-RcC9A[/video]

He says it more eloquently than I ever could.

 

[BugI02]

Wait, are you saying that, "this guy is an internet badass and veteran, therefore the police should just take it easy on him?" And what, let him continue to intimidate and abuse his wife?

You may pretend to misunderstand me all you wish; but tell me, how did that push, push, push we are the law work out for everybody at Waco. How did trying to breach the perimeter over talking them down work out for those four ATF agents? Had the ATF not had the need to prove how badass they were there, how many deaths there and later at OKC could perhaps have been averted.

What I'm saying is everybody has a limit, and push, push, push as often as not is going to find that limit by exceeding it and the results are not predictable; so maybe they should take that into account.

 

[churchmouse]

You may pretend to misunderstand me all you wish; but tell me, how did that push, push, push we are the law work out for everybody at Waco. How did trying to breach the perimeter over talking them down work out for those four ATF agents? Had the ATF not had the need to prove how badass they were there, how many deaths there and later at OKC could perhaps have been averted.

What I'm saying is everybody has a limit, and push, push, push as often as not is going to find that limit by exceeding it and the results are not predictable; so maybe they should take that into account.

JK does this on purpose. A lot.
No worries just respond in kind.
It gets old.

Carry on. Just....well.....you know.

 

[Kurr]

I disagree with that sentiment in the video on "the thin blue line", and this whole "standing up to the cops"

I'm not an educated man but here's why. Haven't we told ourselves forever "The place to fight an injust (unjust?) law is not on the side of the road with an officer, that is what courts are for."? By forcing officers to stand down, are we not then denying someone the chance to fight the law itself and not just the enforcers in a place where the bad law might actually be overturned?

And all this "obey yer oath to the constitution", who decides if a law is unconstitutional? Me? You? The officer? What if half the enforcers feel it is constitutional and the other half doesn't, what then? Who's right, the one who agrees with me, or you? If half enforce and the other half doesn't, then we don't have, equity under the law. Isn't that worse?

Again, "the place to fight a bad law is not on the side of the road with an officer" so why would we ask the officer to take the other side of that fight? Sure in the military you can refuse to follow an unlawful order, but you better believe there's consequences and yer gonna have a trial before its over. That's what these people are asking the officers to do.

If I wanted to fight a law I KNEW in my heart was bad, say the "high capacity magazine ban" I would start a go fund me or something to raise funds for a legal defense, secure a team in advance, then walk into a station with one to be arrested. Then I'd have standing in court to challenge the law.

And can we come up with a name for this? If people call forth the police on false charges to harass someone or have them arrested we have a term, swatting. What if you call forth the mob under false pretenses on the police to kick off the boogaloo? Seems like it needs a term cause I can see it happening a lot more in the future. And how many false calls before the guy that really needs help gets ignored? What if "The British are coming, the British are coming!!" was met with..... "Meh, probably just another lying, attention seeking, social media goof"?

There is nothing good in this situation.

 

[bwframe]

Do we have any confirmation that the police in this situation have overrun their authority?

IMHO, this deal has a lot of folks "on our side" looking like they are awful quick on the trigger.

Anyone currently thinking that this troubled gent, with a substance abuse problem, is the hill we want to die on?

 

[Tombs]

I disagree with that sentiment in the video on "the thin blue line", and this whole "standing up to the cops"

I'm not an educated man but here's why. Haven't we told ourselves forever "The place to fight an injust (unjust?) law is not on the side of the road with an officer, that is what courts are for."? By forcing officers to stand down, are we not then denying someone the chance to fight the law itself and not just the enforcers in a place where the bad law might actually be overturned?

And all this "obey yer oath to the constitution", who decides if a law is unconstitutional? Me? You? The officer? What if half the enforcers feel it is constitutional and the other half doesn't, what then? Who's right, the one who agrees with me, or you? If half enforce and the other half doesn't, then we don't have, equity under the law. Isn't that worse?

Again, "the place to fight a bad law is not on the side of the road with an officer" so why would we ask the officer to take the other side of that fight? Sure in the military you can refuse to follow an unlawful order, but you better believe there's consequences and yer gonna have a trial before its over. That's what these people are asking the officers to do.

If I wanted to fight a law I KNEW in my heart was bad, say the "high capacity magazine ban" I would start a go fund me or something to raise funds for a legal defense, secure a team in advance, then walk into a station with one to be arrested. Then I'd have standing in court to challenge the law.

And can we come up with a name for this? If people call forth the police on false charges to harass someone or have them arrested we have a term, swatting. What if you call forth the mob under false pretenses on the police to kick off the boogaloo? Seems like it needs a term cause I can see it happening a lot more in the future. And how many false calls before the guy that really needs help gets ignored? What if "The British are coming, the British are coming!!" was met with..... "Meh, probably just another lying, attention seeking, social media goof"?

There is nothing good in this situation.

Who decides if a law is unconstitutional? We the people do. You don't need a college degree to be able to read and understand the constitution, it was written for normal human beings, the only people left questioning it are the ones who are seeking to subvert it.

If the courts refuse to recognize the constitution, fighting it in court isn't an option. No it's not fun, yes it's ugly. It would not be a problem if people didn't put a paycheck above their oath and the rights of their fellow Americans. If police want to get on the side of the American gun owner, the sheriff has the authority to make his county a sanctuary for gun rights. That would curtail all of this in short order and de-escalate the situation.

 

[T.Lex]

JK does this on purpose. A lot.
No worries just respond in kind.
It gets old.

Carry on. Just....well.....you know.

I'm sorry - I know its bad form to question a mod, but I don't understand this post.

Granted, I'm only 1 cup of coffee into the morning....

 

[T.Lex]

Who decides if a law is unconstitutional? We the people do. You don't need a college degree to be able to read and understand the constitution, it was written for normal human beings, the only people left questioning it are the ones who are seeking to subvert it.

Where does this idea come from? That the constitution was "written for normal human beings"?

I mean, it was certainly written for humans, by humans. But it was written by humans who were (generally) studied in significant philosophical concepts and practical organization of government. It was written at a time when "normal human beings" were illiterate. It was written for well-educated people of the time to read and understand. I think it is John Adams' personal library that is in the Library of Congress. It is an AMAZING collection of books on topics from all over the world. It reflects a knowledge of, and interest in, very complicated ideas.

And that totally ignores the role of SCOTUS in the actual constitution.

Now, the Federalist Papers... that marketing campaign may have been designed for people to easily understand.

 

[churchmouse]

I'm sorry - I know its bad form to question a mod, but I don't understand this post.

Granted, I'm only 1 cup of coffee into the morning....

Not bad form at all.
I said that as a member and not as a mod. He enjoys stirring things up. He always has. The last statement he made to B102 is one of those posts.

Sometimes it is a good thing. Others it is just silly. He has done it to me many times.

JMHO and no worries. Ask away.

And I hold no malice here. We all have our ways.

 

[T.Lex]

Fair 'nuff.

 

[Hawkeye]

Where does this idea come from? That the constitution was "written for normal human beings"?

I mean, it was certainly written for humans, by humans. But it was written by humans who were (generally) studied in significant philosophical concepts and practical organization of government. It was written at a time when "normal human beings" were illiterate. It was written for well-educated people of the time to read and understand. I think it is John Adams' personal library that is in the Library of Congress. It is an AMAZING collection of books on topics from all over the world. It reflects a knowledge of, and interest in, very complicated ideas.

And that totally ignores the role of SCOTUS in the actual constitution.

Now, the Federalist Papers... that marketing campaign may have been designed for people to easily understand.

Dang! Now you're sounding all elitist on us!

 

[T.Lex]

haha

Again, fair 'nuff.

But some things aren't simple. That's life.

Anyone CAN understand the constitution. Everyone SHOULD understand the constitution. But, it isn't exactly being taught in most places (from what I can tell), partly because it does take effort to really understand it. And how we got to where we are. Which isn't exactly the same place we started.

 

[Brad69]

What's a "boogaloo"?

I keep hearing the term used for this situation.

 

[JettaKnight]

What's a "boogaloo"?

I keep hearing the term used for this situation.

Really?


It's a term the wookie libertarians / 3er / keyboard patriot neckbeards use for their wet dream uprising and government overthrow.