The term entrapment and the definition of course doesn't fit. I never said it did, I said its similar to if the roles were reversed. I don't think theres even a term for what the guy did. Maybe there is some quacky legal mumbo jumbo term for it.


******s

Until robots take over the earth, women will get raped and people will get stabbed in bar fights, and there will be cyclic economic depressions because of animal spirits. They're still bad things.

I personally would never mouth off to a cop or do anything similar because they have a lot of power and could cause me lots of problems. It doesn't mean I have to support them if they do something similar to someone less wise than I.

If I live past 50 I have to expect a decent chance I get cancer. Nonetheless, if I do, EVEN THOUGH I HAD TO EXPECT IT, I'm still gonna go ahead and try to get it removed, because cancer is bad.

Argue that he is JUSTIFIED, not just that his response is EXPECTED, and then we can have something to talk about.

But that doesn't mean the cop isn't a prick for retaliating. The fact is as enforcers of the law, the police should be held to a higher standard than john doe because they should know better.

Also Bobman was refering to the exercise of civil rights, which has nothing to do with being a prick.

cancer would be justified in getting all up in you because old people are a drain on society. *****, geezer.

wtf, "die in a grease fire" is cuss-busted?

I really don't think this guy is out to make a quick buck. He seems more a believer in his cause. If you were out looking to do a frivolous law suit, a police station has to be pretty low on potential targets.

.

I can't stand people like this dude and his I can do this because I can argument...****k me where is common sense in the world! This moron needs to be curb stomped just for being an idiot.

Interesting views here. I've recently discovered the Politics forum and have learned some things. So, I offer this thread to this forum. I quit answering the original because someone wanted me to do their homework. Mods, this thread was originally posted in the Lounge. If you could move it to Politics, it would help. TIA.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/63...et-cop-186485/

Oh, and Donkey, good job using 300 words to explain what I said in 20.

You guys are right. People should really be able to give the finger to anyone and everyone (especially the local police force ON A DAILY BASIS) and be able to legitimately cry foul when that person retaliates because THEY ARE IN THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO! The police, your boss, your wife, some random guy on the subway, some drunk in a bar... Screw them, I AM AN ANARCHIST GODAMMIT!!! Say it loud. Say it proud! It's not creating a nuisance or disturbing the peace at all, as long as you don't physically harm someone. Let them throw the first punch AMIRITE?!

Groundbreaking stuff here. Real revolutionary.

We should not be expected to maintain some basic level of respect if we aren't PHYSICALLY INITIATING FORCE ZOMG!! I'm gonna go stand outside my local police station screaming DIE PIGS DIE!!! at the top of my lungs.

suspend those f... er... without pay. emphasis on the without pay.

You forget the audience that is the majority of 2p2.

No no no, YOU are right. Cops should basically just arrest whoever they dont like.

You're bad at satire. Do you think that flipping someone off is disturbing the peace or creating the nuisance? Or that you can justifiably hit someone if all they do is flip you off? You sound like the big threat to the peace, imo.

FWIW, I'm not an anarchist either.

i was a little early.

I thought he was only issued tickets. Has it even been disclosed for what exactly? If it was in fact bogus, and not something legitimate but they would normally overlook, or he was actually arrested, then of course they have no case.

Either way this guy is a typical anarchist attention whore.

Yes. What, you don't?

Did I say that?

Whether you're in the right or not, you'd have to be a complete idiot not to expect it sooner or later if you wave your finger in enough faces. The sad thing is he really believes he actually accomplished something from all the attention he's likely getting from like-minded morons.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_369982.html

Surprised nobody pointed this out. Just a few months before the same damn thing happened - sorta.

Except, the idiot of topic in this situation was doing it intentionally.

^^^ Look at that AIDS piece of advice^^^

You didn't explain it very well and got it wrong in fact. I was not going to draw specific attention to that fact untill you decided that acting like a douche was very important to you.

If you offer to kill the dudes wife for $50 and he interprets your statement as being sincere then accepting your offer will probably mean hes guilty of murder (if you go through with it) or conspiracy (if you don't). I also think the chances that Entrapment would cover murder are pretty slim. I told you loud and clear Entrapment != incentive.

Oh, and Spidar, good attempt at putting me down. Maybe in future though we should just ignore each other as it's clear you're going to try and argue with me.

He said "won't cut you slack" which implies justification. He's not talking about blatant rights infringement. (I know you obviously have a differing definition of rights than most, but I'm referring to actual legal rights in this case) Police overlook tons of stuff that they would be well within the law to take action against.

Turns out the guy was cited for illegal lane change and improper display of license. lulz. Good luck buddy.

Wow, with those charges it's probably 98% certain that the cop was just harassing this guy.

Uh, he harassed the cop well within his own rights, and the cop "harassed" him back well within his. What's the issue here?

Some of you seem to think that you should just be able to walk into a courtroom and use "Yes your honor, I was clearly in violation of the law, but I was only targeted because Officer Poopy Pants doesn't like me" as a valid defense. Can you see why that wouldn't work, and why this moronic campaign of his is useless?

the above statement imo.

Sorry, still don't see it. Care to elaborate?

Yes we all get that giving the finger is legal, but that doesn't change the fact that shoving it in someone's face unprovoked will invoke feelings of hostility nearly 100% of the time. Hooray, he’s uncovered a technical loophole that youtube commenters can really get behind!

How would you like it if someone came in to your place of work everyday to give you the finger? Would you not also use any means within your legal rights to retaliate? Gimme a break. That’s even ignoring the fact that many people would just instapop him in the mouth. (I'm not saying doing so would be within their rights of course)