You're saying unlawful orders have to be carried out because you might lose your job otherwise.
I expressly did not say that. Expressly did not say they shoudl enforce illegal orders and you cna't quote me as saying that.
You read that because you aren't a careful reader and can't distingiuish your own strong opinion from what someone is actually saying to you as you hate- read your opponent's arguments.
That's on you my friend.
None of the orders are obviously unlawful. Actually, I'll wager you're a guy who has not even the slightest idea of what constitutes an unlawful order as that's been adjudicated over the history of case law.
You're another guy with REALLY STRONG EMOTIONS whose REALLY MAD about something but you can't even be bothered to read what someone actually says when you hit the jackpot and get some personal attention to your specific and, may I say undistinigushed, thoughts from a total stranger on the internet.
If you're boots on the ground and first to the scene, there's a lot you can do and they do it - to the benefit of the citizen. They do nice things for people on the DL and - here's the thing- mostly, the benficiary has absolutely no idea the nice thing ws done for them because it's illegal and they can't risk telling them. Sometimes, if you think about it, you might be able to figure it out later.
One thing they cant be is in open defiance of a direct order; that's insubordination- a firing offense.
This is a direct, verbatim quote. From literally 10 minutes ago.
None of the orders are obviously unlawful. Actually, I'll wager you're a guy who has not even the slightest idea of what constitutes an unlawful order as that's been adjudicated over the history of case law.
Yes, when you stand there and watch people being beaten in the street until they defend themselves because you won't--and then clobber them, all because your boss is using organized gangs of thugs to terrorize citizens in your area and you know you'll be fired if you don't, that is obviously unlawful. And we saw this every single day in a thousand different places all last summer. If you have an example from case law that tells you it's okay to do that, by all means, let's hear about it.
You're another guy with REALLY STRONG EMOTIONS whose REALLY MAD about something but you can't even be bothered to read what someone actually says when you hit the jackpot and get some personal attention to your specific and, may I say undistinigushed, thoughts from a total stranger on the internet.
I have read your comments carefully and quoted them accurately throughout. You're responding emotionally because I correctly identified the moral failure we're seeing all over the country, and you don't like me calling it by its name
DId I say illegal order? No. Those words aren't there. You read that into it.
That was easy. Read what I wrote and what you quoted. How you dragged "illegal order" into what I said is anyone's guess. Those words don't appear. Case closed.
Obviously unlawful.
Yeah, no. They've all been told to disperse. They're all still there. The cops are not referees in street fights. You may be beaten by the cops and you may not be. It all depends on their goals at any instant in time and what their judgment is. You should have dispersed when told to. Since you didn't, you take what you get and you don't get to second guess their judgement. Same goes for everyone there including antifa and BLM.
What you THINK is that since BLM and antifa are doing XYZ the cops should ABC them and DEF you.
Yeah. That's what you think. But that's not what the situation analysts whose concerns and grasp of all things considered exceeds your own. Tough luck.
When told to disperse, disperse. If you feel so strongly that you don't want to, fine, you're going to battle the cops. So battle the cops. What you want is something you can't have. You want to not disperse, battle the cops and win and/or see them beat up the other guy for you.
At this point in this thread you've demonstrated you don't understand the first thing about society or law or policing or justice or crowd control or chain of command or civil disobedience or consequences of your own choices or any of the things you are getting righteous in my general direction about.
You're really just a cry baby who wants what he wants when he wants it because he wants it and anyone who fails to provide any of that in any context is a Nazi who is using the Nuremberg excuse !!!!!!!!!!
They've all been told to disperse. They're all still there.
All? No. An order to disperse was not a factor in all of the many recorded examples of cops picking sides in these fracases. Some, sure. But all? That's absurd. You're just trying to throw in a variable that's not relevant.
You should have dispersed when told to.
This is not even relevant to whether or not a cop should protect people and property when crimes are being committed right in front of him. And it's not applicable when no dispersal order was even given. Aside from all that, it's kind of hard to comply with a dispersal order when four guys gang up on you and are kicking your ass while the cops watch.
The cops are not referees in street fights.
No one said they should be. They're not supposed to be spectators or participants in violent crimes, either.
What you THINK is that since BLM and antifa are doing XYZ the cops should ABC them and DEF you.
What I KNOW is that if XYZ = violent crimes, you should do your fucking job.
It very much concerns me, as it does everyone, and if "situation analysts" can't understand this very simple and easy-to-understand principle, I'd say my grasp far, far, far exceeds theirs.
When told to disperse, disperse. If you feel so strongly that you don't want to, fine, you're going to battle the cops.
You're not saving face with any of this "disperse" shit.
What you want is something you can't have.
I want you to do your fucking job.
At this point in this thread you've demonstrated you don't understand the first thing about society or law or policing or justice or crowd control or chain of command or civil disobedience or consequences of your own choices or any of the things you are getting righteous in my general direction about.
I understand all that well enough to shame and embarrass you because of your failed rationalizations for not doing what you know is right several times over.
You're really just a cry baby who wants what he wants when he wants it because he wants it and anyone who fails to provide any of that in any context is a Nazi who is using the Nuremberg excuse !!!!!!!!!!
I called you out for trying to use the Nuremberg defense because you were using it. Maybe you hadn't ever thought of it that way, but you should have. You're ashamed of yourself (as you should be), and that is why you are being such a bitch right now.
And what I want is for you to stop being a coward and do the job citizens pay you to do and which you swore to do.
I called you out for trying to use the Nuremberg defense because you were using it.
Yeah. I challenged you to show me where I said cops should obey illegal orders.
It all wouldnt' be so bad but like the SJWs you're so accusatory and morally demeaning towards anyone who disagrees with you, you make it about your opponents personal failures then attack them for these perceived failures, all the while displaying total ignorance on the topics you're holding forth on.
In true loudmouth fashion, you also talk around your opponents valid points either never addressing them at all or pretending that you did when a simple reading of what you wrote reveals you didn't.
Valid points I made you are factually wrong about so far:
I never said cops should obey illegal orders. Never. Said. That.
Nurmeberg is irrelevant for that very reason. Yet you continue to think it applies.
Cops are not enforcers of your personal perception of what is justice in real time on the streets. That's for the courts. Repeatedly this is what you require of them. The larger society including most social theorists, lawyers and experts think that's a very bad idea. The laws as written and case law as it exists does not agree with that directive to the cops from you either. Ergo, you lose, despite your outsized moral indignation.
Unlawful assemblies are always told to disperse whether there's a video of it or not. Riots are always unlawful assemblies.
Until "the issue" has been challeneged in court and worked its through the courts cops are not going to guess if it's illegal or not if there's a reasonable doubt.
Please, for all our sakes, do not take this as an opportunity to argue there is no reasonable doubt because of XYZ. That's your frustrated inner lawyer coming out. That's an argument you make at a judge not at a cop.
If it's not blatantly illegal and immoral, cops will carry the order out because they, unlike you, understand that for an orderly society to prevail, there needs to be an enfrocement mechanism that does not arrogate to itself the power of judge (and jury) also.
Expect orders as given to be enforced until a judge decides the order is unlawful, except at the extremes, which is not what we have here<-- again, shut up.
The entire world is in lockdown. You and I both agree it's an extreme outrage and illegal and some fascist shit. But let your system work and see what SCOTUS says. If SCOTUS blinks then organized resistance is some form will happen and I'll see ya on the barricades, but I will probably dleiberately avoid you there also.
I see you're a major Doomer here. Doomers are hysterical and weak. We will meet again. You're going to like it even less.
I expressly did not say that. Expressly did not say they shoudl enforce illegal orders and you cna't quote me as saying that.
You read that because you aren't a careful reader and can't distingiuish your own strong opinion from what someone is actually saying to you as you hate- read your opponent's arguments.
That's on you my friend.
None of the orders are obviously unlawful. Actually, I'll wager you're a guy who has not even the slightest idea of what constitutes an unlawful order as that's been adjudicated over the history of case law.
You're another guy with REALLY STRONG EMOTIONS whose REALLY MAD about something but you can't even be bothered to read what someone actually says when you hit the jackpot and get some personal attention to your specific and, may I say undistinigushed, thoughts from a total stranger on the internet.
Yeah. No.
This is a direct, verbatim quote. From literally 10 minutes ago.
Yes, when you stand there and watch people being beaten in the street until they defend themselves because you won't--and then clobber them, all because your boss is using organized gangs of thugs to terrorize citizens in your area and you know you'll be fired if you don't, that is obviously unlawful. And we saw this every single day in a thousand different places all last summer. If you have an example from case law that tells you it's okay to do that, by all means, let's hear about it.
I have read your comments carefully and quoted them accurately throughout. You're responding emotionally because I correctly identified the moral failure we're seeing all over the country, and you don't like me calling it by its name
DId I say illegal order? No. Those words aren't there. You read that into it.
That was easy. Read what I wrote and what you quoted. How you dragged "illegal order" into what I said is anyone's guess. Those words don't appear. Case closed.
Yeah, no. They've all been told to disperse. They're all still there. The cops are not referees in street fights. You may be beaten by the cops and you may not be. It all depends on their goals at any instant in time and what their judgment is. You should have dispersed when told to. Since you didn't, you take what you get and you don't get to second guess their judgement. Same goes for everyone there including antifa and BLM.
What you THINK is that since BLM and antifa are doing XYZ the cops should ABC them and DEF you.
Yeah. That's what you think. But that's not what the situation analysts whose concerns and grasp of all things considered exceeds your own. Tough luck.
When told to disperse, disperse. If you feel so strongly that you don't want to, fine, you're going to battle the cops. So battle the cops. What you want is something you can't have. You want to not disperse, battle the cops and win and/or see them beat up the other guy for you.
At this point in this thread you've demonstrated you don't understand the first thing about society or law or policing or justice or crowd control or chain of command or civil disobedience or consequences of your own choices or any of the things you are getting righteous in my general direction about.
You're really just a cry baby who wants what he wants when he wants it because he wants it and anyone who fails to provide any of that in any context is a Nazi who is using the Nuremberg excuse !!!!!!!!!!
All? No. An order to disperse was not a factor in all of the many recorded examples of cops picking sides in these fracases. Some, sure. But all? That's absurd. You're just trying to throw in a variable that's not relevant.
This is not even relevant to whether or not a cop should protect people and property when crimes are being committed right in front of him. And it's not applicable when no dispersal order was even given. Aside from all that, it's kind of hard to comply with a dispersal order when four guys gang up on you and are kicking your ass while the cops watch.
No one said they should be. They're not supposed to be spectators or participants in violent crimes, either.
What I KNOW is that if XYZ = violent crimes, you should do your fucking job.
It very much concerns me, as it does everyone, and if "situation analysts" can't understand this very simple and easy-to-understand principle, I'd say my grasp far, far, far exceeds theirs.
You're not saving face with any of this "disperse" shit.
I want you to do your fucking job.
I understand all that well enough to shame and embarrass you because of your failed rationalizations for not doing what you know is right several times over.
I called you out for trying to use the Nuremberg defense because you were using it. Maybe you hadn't ever thought of it that way, but you should have. You're ashamed of yourself (as you should be), and that is why you are being such a bitch right now.
And what I want is for you to stop being a coward and do the job citizens pay you to do and which you swore to do.
Yeah. I challenged you to show me where I said cops should obey illegal orders.
It all wouldnt' be so bad but like the SJWs you're so accusatory and morally demeaning towards anyone who disagrees with you, you make it about your opponents personal failures then attack them for these perceived failures, all the while displaying total ignorance on the topics you're holding forth on.
In true loudmouth fashion, you also talk around your opponents valid points either never addressing them at all or pretending that you did when a simple reading of what you wrote reveals you didn't.
Valid points I made you are factually wrong about so far:
I never said cops should obey illegal orders. Never. Said. That.
Nurmeberg is irrelevant for that very reason. Yet you continue to think it applies.
Cops are not enforcers of your personal perception of what is justice in real time on the streets. That's for the courts. Repeatedly this is what you require of them. The larger society including most social theorists, lawyers and experts think that's a very bad idea. The laws as written and case law as it exists does not agree with that directive to the cops from you either. Ergo, you lose, despite your outsized moral indignation.
Unlawful assemblies are always told to disperse whether there's a video of it or not. Riots are always unlawful assemblies.
Until "the issue" has been challeneged in court and worked its through the courts cops are not going to guess if it's illegal or not if there's a reasonable doubt.
Please, for all our sakes, do not take this as an opportunity to argue there is no reasonable doubt because of XYZ. That's your frustrated inner lawyer coming out. That's an argument you make at a judge not at a cop.
If it's not blatantly illegal and immoral, cops will carry the order out because they, unlike you, understand that for an orderly society to prevail, there needs to be an enfrocement mechanism that does not arrogate to itself the power of judge (and jury) also.
Expect orders as given to be enforced until a judge decides the order is unlawful, except at the extremes, which is not what we have here<-- again, shut up.
The entire world is in lockdown. You and I both agree it's an extreme outrage and illegal and some fascist shit. But let your system work and see what SCOTUS says. If SCOTUS blinks then organized resistance is some form will happen and I'll see ya on the barricades, but I will probably dleiberately avoid you there also.
I see you're a major Doomer here. Doomers are hysterical and weak. We will meet again. You're going to like it even less.