http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...ry.html#page=1
Looks like it's not really illegal though.
Printable View
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...ry.html#page=1
Looks like it's not really illegal though.
Is it not a legal requirement to ensure your passengers wear a seat belt. Any Police Officers who don't strap in detainees should be arrested and it most definitely should be illegal. That is inexcusable.
A lot of states don't have passenger seat belt laws, especially for transport vehicles. School and public buses for example have no seat belts.
I'm not sure if this is relevant. The results of their actions were reasonably foreseeable. They intended to injure. If in the commission of a felony another felony takes place, you're guilty for both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Over here it is indeed a legal requirement to check that everyone wears a seat belt. If you're stopped by the police, it's the driver who gets fined (and, depending on the age of the offender, also the one without a seat belt).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
School and public busses indeed don't have those, private busses actually do - and the bus drivers also do remind you to wear them.
I meant that it's apparently not illegal in practice because I don't see anyone eg going to jail over these things or even admitting fault.
It should be an illegal practice. Not only that, it is unethical.
People shouldn't have to fear the police, and peaceful protestors shouldn't be lumped in with rioters and looters, either. :donkey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Lewk, what you're advocating is pretty close to Stop-and-Frisk racial profiling. Not all peaceful protestors have rap sheets a mile long, and you're too ready to see them as rioters/looters in the first place. When 60's student protestors were non-violent and didn't impede the flow of business on the west coast, did you think it was okay for police to use pepper spray and gas bombs? Do you think it was acceptable for state police or national guard to use water hoses or dogs against people who had the constitutional right to vote, or attend a non-segregated public school?
Criminals should fear the police.
Peaceful protest that doesn't impede people's daily lives (the flow of business) is perfectly acceptable. Police should not go after those folks at all. It is when it turns violent that measures need to take place. If you are in favor of peaceful protest you should support draconian measures against non-peaceful protest. Though in many cases the 'violent protesters' weren't protesters at all and just thugs looking to use the chaos to be thuggish.
This is one of the weirdest remarks I've read on this forum ever, or at least this year :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
When protests turn violent, peaceful protest also gets shutdown. See mandatory curfews as an example. You can't just let a city burn of course so the option of doing nothing doesn't exist. Not sure why this is difficult - if you value peaceful protest you should be for getting violent protesters locked up/out of the streets ASAP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
its that thinking that allows police (or anyone who wants the protest shutdown) to seed a protest with a few undercover trouble makers in order to shut it down. its all about the propaganda, and nothing works better than a few well placed shots of a few hooded men smashing windows.
I've already tried explaining this to lewk once, since he seemed unable to handle a larger understanding concerning such things, but he brushed it off.
Locked up? Pretty sure you were talking about assassinations earlier so the question is, really, how much are you for peaceful protest and against assassin-cops respectively? And we can then pose the same question to less borked people who want more than one thing in life (something other than bloodfap in other words).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Populace is committing violence. One of the fundamental parts of government is protecting people from violence. There are two options.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
1. Attempt to put down violent criminals (who in the case of riots drastically outnumber police) in risky physical confrontations and try to bring them to prison. This option is risky for police.
2. Attempt to put down violent criminals safely. IE through use of snipers and clear deterrents. This option is least risky for police and has the added benefit of putting down rabid dogs who make society a worse place.
Unless you are suggesting we simply *allow* people to burn, loot and riot to their heart's content?
An ounce of prevention and get rid of your fat dumb racist cos :o
Considering the amount of firearms in your country, and a constitution saying you need them to fire at tyrannical governments, I think shooting protesters might actually be more dangerous for the police since it's not unlikely you'll get a lot of fire back.
I'm all for equality. Rioters of all races should be shot. Its the liberals who believe people should be treated differently based on race. (It is after all an official part of their platform.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Possibly but if you have folks willing to get into armed confrontations on the streets... don't you want those people in the ground or in prison as opposed to on the streets?Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
No, I'm pretty sure you're the one who believes it's good that cops mistreat black people due to racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Liberals - why bother even arguing with them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
In pretty sure you're one of our two resident racial profiling guys
Because you might in the process learn something?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
:haha: Yeah, and if he learns something Than he might change his mind rather then continue his bullheaded ways. Amusing watching y'all get trolled.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Who's the other?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Learn that liberals love to use the race card when they have no substance to back up arguments?Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Ever argue against welfare? To a liberal you're probably a racist.
Ever argue in favor of longer prison sentences? To a liberal you're probably a racist.
Ever argue against the RACIST policy of Affirmative Action? To a liberal you're probably a racist. (Yeah spin that nonsense rofl).
To be fair not all liberals enjoy ad hominem attacks however it is done quite often at almost any turn. Let a political debate go on long enough and you'll see a liberal play the race card. This forum seems to be no exception.
Irony is correcting grammar and making your own mistakes while doing it. ;) And don't try to pretend you meant to capitalize one word but not the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Lewk, you're the one who said "a populace" is committing the violence. That's code for racial profiling. :donkey:
You don't seem to understand that when a peaceful protest turns into a RIOT, it's usually started by a few individuals and not any particular group. Events can devolve into mob behavior pretty fast, regardless of who throws the first stone, but it can escalate even faster when the Police use excessive force.
Your "put them down hard" stance comes from another era.
Peaceful protest is fine. Once it turns violent you have to deal with the violent offenders. If police officers are allowed to wade in and are not deterred by the peaceful protesters that is fine... however that is RARELY the case. Primarily because the majority of the people out there looting don't want to make it easy for the police. They want to steal stuff and be a menace.
I agree with you -- that a 'majority' of those who set out to loot or steal are menaces, often with criminal intent. That small minority of criminal opportunist can ruin any peaceful protest....especially if police see that as a green-light to use excessive force in crowd control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
College students can turn a sports conference win (or loss) into chaos, with burning sofas and trashing cars on the streets. For that matter, professional sports 'inspires' the same kind of violence after a Super Bowl or World Cup. Are you advocating for the "put them down hard" stance in those situations, too?
He probably is, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Mentioning how a minority can fuck up a protest reminded me that it's not unheard of for police to use agent provocateurs in protests (though I doubt they did that in these protests).
Actually yes I think riots due to championship wins should be put down hard. There is no excuse (outside of outright rebellion against a tyrannical government) to wreck other people's stuff. Let alone risk people's lives by setting things on fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT