GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-06-2011, 19:16   #21
Brucev
Senior Member
 
Brucev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 9,189
"Anti-authority" = The grieved whining of those who long for black uniforms, whips and appell.
Brucev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 19:16   #22
RickD
Pro-Open Curry
 
RickD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Arizona
Posts: 8,644
Send a message via AIM to RickD


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Post 5.
I have a problem with this sentence (fer starters):

Quote:
In very, very broad terms, authority is what imposes order in a community.
I could argue that Authority could also impose disorder (or dystopia) on a community. The easy ones would be alcohol Prohibition in the 1920s, The War on Drugs, Jim Crow... Since you mentioned "parental authority," what if "school authority (in loco parentis) undermines parental authority, thus creating disorderly children? What if the authority of the income tax (and other taxes loads) and the Welfare System, create a situation where the former has both parents working (less time nurturing children) while the latter causes single parents (same result)?

So, no sale, just yet.
__________________
Get outta my OODA Loop
RickD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 19:47   #23
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,106
Order is a manifestation of discipline. That can come about internally or externally. I submit that anyone who relies wholly on individual self-discipline in any society is an idiot. So we're left with an external component. Mom & Dad, teacher, tribal council, courts and officers---doesn't matter, it's there.

All your "what if something goes wrong with authority" and "what if the individual is justified in bucking the authority" are non-topical. At best, they're a sign of a lack of balance that I referenced in my first post. The fact remains that there are plenty of people introducing friction to the society out of egotistical reasons; besides the examples I've listed, a pile of threads got courtesy bumps showing some of those personalities in action.

"What is anti-authoritarianism?" I think you've gotten that answered. Really, what's unclear?
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle

Last edited by Sam Spade; 03-06-2011 at 19:58..
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 19:55   #24
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,106
Or let's flip it. You tell me, Rick. Is it ever wise and preferable to submit to authority when your personal desires say not to? Might peace in the house or among your neighbors be worth biting your tongue here or there?

I say, "yes". The guy who refuses to do so might be the Enlightened One about to lead us to a higher plane. But the odds are that he's just a jerk.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 20:11   #25
RickD
Pro-Open Curry
 
RickD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Arizona
Posts: 8,644
Send a message via AIM to RickD


Was Rosa Parks enlightened? Patrick Henry? Socrates? (oops, bad example).

I still haven't gotten a suitable answer to what anti-authoriatism is.

Sounds like defense lawyers are anti-authoritism if we go by what's already been written.

Perhaps TBO will respond and clear the air...
__________________
Get outta my OODA Loop
RickD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 20:15   #26
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,106
Please define "suitable".
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 20:27   #27
Kegs
Ol 8 fingers ;)
 
Kegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cold side of conus
Posts: 2,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD View Post
So, my question is, what is "anti-authority" as it relates to an American Citizen under the Constitution?
Rick
Are there any supreme court justices who are members of Glock talk?

__________________
"What's the down side to 10mm again? Oh, that's right, there isn't one."" Carrier21
Kegs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 21:02   #28
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD View Post
Was Rosa Parks enlightened?

No, she didn't do what the man tell her to do. Anti-authority.


Civil Liberties Issues



Patrick Henry?

No again. What kind of loser doesn't sign the constitution?


Socrates?

Come on, Rick D. Do we have to get the GT authorities to make you drink your hemlock?

NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 21:11   #29
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,186
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD View Post
...I still haven't gotten a suitable answer to what anti-authoriatism is...
And I'll wager you will not read here any answer you deem suitable.

As Sam said, "Post #5."
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921

Last edited by RussP; 03-06-2011 at 21:14..
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 22:16   #30
RickD
Pro-Open Curry
 
RickD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Arizona
Posts: 8,644
Send a message via AIM to RickD


Yes, I read Post #5 where he said that refusing to speak to police was "anti-authority" when, in fact it is SOP and taught to and practiced by every criminal defense attorney in the nation (or he'd be disbarred).

If, then, he is saying that such a commonplace is an example of anti-authority, then it has no real meaning in this Constitutional Republic where, I am told, we have a right to remain silent.

A non-starter, gents.
__________________
Get outta my OODA Loop
RickD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2011, 00:15   #31
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,106
Is that what you read? Because it's not what I wrote.

Define "suitable".
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2011, 02:16   #32
WCrawford
OC Zealot
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Likewise, just because not talking to cops is often wise exercise of one's rights the instances of obstruction based on dislike of authority can't be wished away.
Which is it? Is it a right not to speak with the police or obstruction? It can't be both.

Or are you stating that a person who dislikes law enforcement loses the right to silence?
WCrawford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2011, 08:46   #33
actionshooter10
CLM Number 19
Charter Lifetime Member
 
actionshooter10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by actionshooter10 View Post
Hope that helps.
Rick,

Posting my response in your two other threads on the same subject to give you a chance to reply.
__________________
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States
actionshooter10 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2011, 09:36   #34
Bikenut
Senior Member
 
Bikenut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: In harm's way.
Posts: 2,091
I'm 62 years old and I've seen the progression from the friendly neighborhood cop (who knew the difference between a criminal and decent folk) and the now militarized police force (yes "force") who generally treat everyone as a criminal until the individual can prove differently. A police force who's focus is on them going home safe...

How about being pro rights and expecting the government... and it's representatives/employees... to respect the rights of "we the people" and to obey the laws... starting with the law of the land the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the respective State Constitutions, and the respective lesser laws.

Would my expecting such a thing make me "anti authority"? Or does it just make me someone some LE think should just shut up and obey because "authority" is what keeps society together and the officer is that "authority"?

Oddly enough I'm not anti authority nor am I anti LE... I just expect LE to respect the same rights and obey the same laws I have to.
__________________
The longer I live the older I get.
Neither has anything to do with wisdom.
Bikenut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2011, 10:18   #35
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by WCrawford View Post
Which is it? Is it a right not to speak with the police or obstruction? It can't be both.

Or are you stating that a person who dislikes law enforcement loses the right to silence?
Sure it can be both. Or do you really believe that people can't have different motives for the same action?
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2011, 17:48   #36
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
I'm 62 years old and I've seen the progression from the friendly neighborhood cop (who knew the difference between a criminal and decent folk) and the now militarized police force (yes "force") who generally treat everyone as a criminal until the individual can prove differently.

...

Oddly enough I'm not anti authority nor am I anti LE... I just expect LE to respect the same rights and obey the same laws I have to.
I was always fairly neutral about such things until I started to notice changes in the mid-1990s. There were some glimpses of these things just starting in the late 1970s/early 1980s.

I don't know the details of LE training, but it seems LE is less likely to rely on commone sense and instincts than in the past. It seems like letting everyone prove they're not doing anything wrong is the path of least resistance.

I don't know a lot about LE on GT, but there is one law enforcement GT poster who has about 32 years experience. His posts usually strike common sense and reliance on skills.
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2011, 18:01   #37
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,186
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
...I don't know the details of LE training, but it seems LE is less likely to rely on commone sense and instincts than in the past. It seems like letting everyone prove they're not doing anything wrong is the path of least resistance...
What do you mean by the part in bold? Can you give an example?
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2011, 18:56   #38
RickD
Pro-Open Curry
 
RickD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Arizona
Posts: 8,644
Send a message via AIM to RickD


Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
What do you mean by the part in bold? Can you give an example?
Off-topic. Start a new thread if you wish to pursue this side issue.
__________________
Get outta my OODA Loop
RickD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2011, 19:01   #39
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
What do you mean by the part in bold? Can you give an example?
--I see no common sense in this video. Here is a decorated veteran who complies, but the BP insists on harassment. The BP goes as far as calling CID.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meGJ0Wiou3U



--I see no common sense in this video. Terry Bressi passes through this checkpoint daily on his way to work at Kitt Observatory. The regular BP has clearly known his identity for the past several years. Terry has a pending lawsuit, but the BP insists on playing games.

The BP runs a drug sniffing dog around Terry’s car:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdDEBT-UoJ0

The rookie asks the other BP agents if he should just mess with Terry (except substitute the 4 letter word for intercourse).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd3eBXwBSfU
__________________





--I can also tell you about and provide audio and video of Brett Darrow, the man Missouri police just can’t get enough of at their checkpoints. There’s also the case of Steven Anderson, the man who was tazed and beaten at a checkpoint when he declined to talk with law enforcement (the case against him was dismissed, by the way. Steven has now filed his own lawsuit).


--I could show you video from the San Diego man who went to Mexico to buy floor tiles and was harassed at an internal checkpoint. You can also listen to the story of my 82 year old neighbor who was bothered by our local sheriff who has nothing better to do in a sleepy town on a Saturday night.


--I can also give you accounts from people who drink one glass of wine at a restaurant. They are asked at a checkpoint if they’ve had anything to drink. They reply, “One glass of wine,” and are immediately sent to secondary for alcohol impairment testing. Call Sarah Longwell at the American Beverage Institute to get the lowdown on those stories.

--Have a conversation with former Boone North Carolina Police Chief, Bill Post. He once told me that detecting drunks in saturation patrols and roving patrols is too difficult. That is why they prefer checkpoints.


--I could show you the mounds of evidence showing that these checkpoints don’t work, either as a deterrent to drunk driving or arresting more drunks. Law enforcement still conducts checkpoints despite all of this evidence. I see no common sense in that.


--No, I won’t be talking to the police any more either. They can no longer tell the difference between a common drunk and someone standing up for their rights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIupHbRTpb8

Last edited by NorthCarolinaLiberty; 03-07-2011 at 19:21..
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2011, 20:49   #40
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,186
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
...I don't know the details of LE training, but it seems LE is less likely to rely on commone sense and instincts than in the past. It seems like letting everyone prove they're not doing anything wrong is the path of least resistance...
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
What do you mean by the part in bold? Can you give an example?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
--I see no common sense in this video. Here is a decorated veteran who complies, but the BP insists on harassment. The BP goes as far as calling CID.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meGJ0Wiou3U



--I see no common sense in this video. Terry Bressi passes through this checkpoint daily on his way to work at Kitt Observatory. The regular BP has clearly known his identity for the past several years. Terry has a pending lawsuit, but the BP insists on playing games.

The BP runs a drug sniffing dog around Terry’s car:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdDEBT-UoJ0

The rookie asks the other BP agents if he should just mess with Terry (except substitute the 4 letter word for intercourse).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd3eBXwBSfU
__________________





--I can also tell you about and provide audio and video of Brett Darrow, the man Missouri police just can’t get enough of at their checkpoints. There’s also the case of Steven Anderson, the man who was tazed and beaten at a checkpoint when he declined to talk with law enforcement (the case against him was dismissed, by the way. Steven has now filed his own lawsuit).


--I could show you video from the San Diego man who went to Mexico to buy floor tiles and was harassed at an internal checkpoint. You can also listen to the story of my 82 year old neighbor who was bothered by our local sheriff who has nothing better to do in a sleepy town on a Saturday night.


--I can also give you accounts from people who drink one glass of wine at a restaurant. They are asked at a checkpoint if they’ve had anything to drink. They reply, “One glass of wine,” and are immediately sent to secondary for alcohol impairment testing. Call Sarah Longwell at the American Beverage Institute to get the lowdown on those stories.

--Have a conversation with former Boone North Carolina Police Chief, Bill Post. He once told me that detecting drunks in saturation patrols and roving patrols is too difficult. That is why they prefer checkpoints.


--I could show you the mounds of evidence showing that these checkpoints don’t work, either as a deterrent to drunk driving or arresting more drunks. Law enforcement still conducts checkpoints despite all of this evidence. I see no common sense in that.


--No, I won’t be talking to the police any more either. They can no longer tell the difference between a common drunk and someone standing up for their rights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIupHbRTpb8
You make a broad, general comment that "LE is less likely to rely on commone sense and instincts than in the past."

Then you post links to incidents related to a very narrow aspect of law enforcement duties - checkpoints, border checkpoints and DUI checkpoints.

While I doubt you will agree, instincts and common sense are well and alive in the other parts of law enforcement. Now, if I am wrong, show me instances outside of "checkpoints" (although I still don't see the correlation between instincts and commonsense and DUI checkpoints) where instincts weren't applied.

Thanks...
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 20:04.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,434
410 Members
1,024 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 16:42