[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because every liberal idiot who thinks they are cleverly going to stick it to the man files a frivolous lawsuit that they were responsible for, and tie up the courts, and slow down society.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have any clue why a lawsuit is happening in the first place? The cop asked to see his ID, he said he'd just give his name (and he also gave him the receipt). The cop then placed him under arrest. Then he inspected the bag and saw that this guy hadn't stolen anything. He still took him down to the station and charged him with a crim.
Regardless of how douchebaggy you think this guy is, the "frivolous lawsuit" will occur because a police officer severely overstepped his boundaries.
[/ QUOTE ]
The police officer overstepped his boundaries because captain america decided to break the social norm of an innocent person and act like a criminal. If the officer doesn't interpret radical liberalism like I do, he would come to the reasonable conclusion when arriving at this situation that this guy is stealing something, and act accordingly.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, the cop simply acted inappropriately. Can you imagine this transpiring:
perg: "Hey cop guy, saucyspade has a gun on him, and he doesn't have a license"
cop: "I don't see a gun. What kind was it?"
perg: "Well I don't know, I didn't actually see it, I just asked him if he had one and he wouldn't tell me"
I'm pretty sure that any cop with half a brain would tell me he can't do anything. He sure as hell can't just pat the guy down out of nowhere.
Breaking social norms doesn't make you a criminal. Even if you think he "acted like a criminal" here by refusing to show the contents of his bag, that's no basis on which to treat him like he really is a criminal.
When someone pressures you into acting a certain way, that's an infringement of your freedom. In this case, the police officer said he'd arrest the guy if he didn't present some ID. Either way he'd have his freedom limited (forced to do something he feels he shouldn't, or go to jail). Evidently it was more important for him to make the decision that he felt was right rather than comfortable.
[ QUOTE ]
Instead of expressing his concern with their policies in a civil way, he chose a method that would embarrass the employees and make himself look like a martyr, from his perspective. This is the standard operating procedure for pussy liberals in this country, passive aggressive, and then when they meet aggressive-aggressive and wind up getting their ass kicked or thrown in jail, they file said frivolous lawsuits. They knowingly evoke responses, and then try to exploit them for moral or financial gain.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not only standard operating procedure for pussy liberals, but it's also a pretty effective way of enacting social change. He could have written letters, which probably would be ignored. He could have started petitions or boycotts, but I have a feeling most people don't care enough.
Most unconstitutional laws don't get repealed by other laws. They get stricken down because someone was found guilty of a crime under a law that the courts later deem to be unconstitutional. That's the system we live under, and I think it's intelligent to work within it.
In this situation, the police officer violated Righi's 4th Amendment right (imo). This kind of behavior won't be fixed by rallies and letters to Congressmen. It'll be fixed when a court says, "you can't do that."
[ QUOTE ]
and if you think i exude partisan hate, I am not a conservative, I am more libertarian than anything. I just hate idiots who do stupid things to make a point and act out of principle when it inconveniences and hurts everyone around them. It's good that he traumatized his nephews and they got to see him cuffed and tossed in a cop car just because he had to make a point. Way to be a responsible adult.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's really strange to blame him for getting arrested when he didn't do anything wrong. The cop was the one who did something
wrong. Last time I checked behaving in a way that "inconveniences" people is not grounds for incrimination.
Also I think the responsible thing is standing up for one's principles. In ten years he can explain this event to his nephews. Hopefully he can make the point that everybody doesn't always agree on what principles to stand up for, and when you feel it's worth doing, but the important thing is to never let anyone compromise your integrity for any reason, especially not on the basis that it's "convenient."
This reminds me a lot of
this video where a health inspector trespasses on a guy's property. The sheriff says, "if you don't have anything to hide then why not let her look?" It doesn't work like that though. I'm not sure where people choose to draw the line... Righi apparently draws it at people digging through his bag of newly purchased goods. Others may think it's not worth the hassle. I imagine everyone draws a line somewhere though, and the question is how do you respond when someone oversteps it?
Also I find it incredibly ironic how Righi was arrested for not presenting an ID even though there was no reason to suspect him of a crime. In the video though, the health inspector refuses to identify herself other than by her first name and last initial, while the sheriff stands by and witnesses the trespass first hand. At the very least, without a warrant, he has to suspect a crime is taking place, hasn't he?