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 03-09-2011, 19:39   #121
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Which part do you believe is an argument not made by the type of person I've called "anti-authority"? Do you think that there aren't people with the stance, "I'll never talk to any police officer under any circumstances"? Do you think that there are not people out there who view almost all officers as illegitimate and holding no authority whatsoever?

You can't be that sheltered.

I always thought your posts to pretty sensible and well thought out, but this example is just out there. An officer asks about a little girl and the rebel says, "Am I being detained?" I mean, dude, come on.
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 19:54   #122
TBO
CLM Number 122
Why so serious?
 
TBO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NRA Life Member
Posts: 45,517
Blog Entries: 1


Intellectually Dishonest.
TBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 20:41   #123
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,486
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Which part do you believe is an argument not made by the type of person I've called "anti-authority"? Do you think that there aren't people with the stance, "I'll never talk to any police officer under any circumstances"? Do you think that there are not people out there who view almost all officers as illegitimate and holding no authority whatsoever?

You can't be that sheltered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
I always thought your posts to pretty sensible and well thought out, but this example is just out there. An officer asks about a little girl and the rebel says, "Am I being detained?" I mean, dude, come on.
Now there you go again, dismissing questions put to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Which part do you believe is an argument not made by the type of person I've called "anti-authority"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
And the answer is:______________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Do you think that there aren't people with the stance, "I'll never talk to any police officer under any circumstances"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
And the answer is:______________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Do you think that there are not people out there who view almost all officers as illegitimate and holding no authority whatsoever?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
And the answer is:________________________________________
__________________
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 03-10-2011, 21:17   #124
RickD
Pro-Open Curry
 
RickD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Arizona
Posts: 8,647
Send a message via AIM to RickD


I've been off-line for a while and see that this thread is up to five-plus pages. So, I'll be straggling a bit...

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Who filed the complaint that caused the arrest? The school did. Are the police to ignore the complaint?
I think you missed the irony.

The school teachers, operating under "Zero-Tolerance" policies (well-discussed on this web site and others), call the police for a stick figure drawing.

The police, normally having wide latitude (discretion, I think you'd call it), decide to parrot the school's Zero-Tolerance policy and arrest the student for said stick figure drawing.

So there you have it.
__________________
Get outta my OODA Loop
RickD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 21:40   #125
RickD
Pro-Open Curry
 
RickD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Arizona
Posts: 8,647
Send a message via AIM to RickD


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Q: Are there people who advocate or practice not ever talking to police under any circumstances?
A: Yes.
Yes, these advocates are called *Attorneys*. Maybe they know something that you're not telling us?

Quote:
Suppose police ask them about something for the public good, in no way intended or able to incriminate them, and they spout the "Am I being detained/talk to my lawyer" line.
Do you remember all of the talk on Rush, Hannity, and O'Reilly about "Perjury Traps?" See also, "Scooter Libby." That's when someone says something from memory that turns out to not be completely true. That person is later prosecuted.

Quote:
Might a reasonable person class that as obstructionist behavior, fueled by anti-authority views,
No one has told us what "anti-authority" means and now you're using it as a definition within this thread. Cart before horse.

Quote:
Do you really see that as a plucky Everyman hero, engaged in the noble exercise of his rights? Or do you see a jerk?
Perhaps I see a lawyer. Let's say he truthfully says, "No, I haven't seen her." Then, a few days later, a security camera shows the man walking on the way to the donut shop as he absent-mindedly passes the girl.

I suppose a "rational person" might very well think that strange... strange, because it is strange. It's not very likely to happen, now, is it?

A more real scenario is this...

Quote:
Cop: "Mind if I search your vehicle?"

American Citizen: "You'll need a warrant first."
Completely normal. What is *not* normal (although, perhaps common on CopTalk) is to accuse the Citizen of being "anti-authority." To label with that as-yet-to-be-defined term, is utterly funkadelically STOOPID.

Now, compare that with a similar seen in Bolivia:

Quote:
Federale: "Get the ***** out of your car, ****** bag!!"

Bolivian peasant: "Si', Senor."
See the difference?
__________________
Get outta my OODA Loop
RickD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 21:45   #126
RickD
Pro-Open Curry
 
RickD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Arizona
Posts: 8,647
Send a message via AIM to RickD


Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
You talked to one former Chief of Police?
Well, you did ask, didn't you? He answered in the affirmative. Could you provide us the upper and lower limits?
__________________
Get outta my OODA Loop
RickD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 21:50   #127
RickD
Pro-Open Curry
 
RickD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Arizona
Posts: 8,647
Send a message via AIM to RickD


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheeBadOne View Post
IMHO "deterrence" is always hard to measure. It's the old "prove a negative" thing.
Not really. To measure it, one has to design a study and collect data. Data from similar jurisdiction (as defined by criminological parameters commonly used). One jurisdiction with "Click-It Or Ticket" the other one without "Click-It Or Ticket." Compare the standard curves with a suitable statistical test based on the data type (binary, categorical, continuous, whatever).

Most studies will find that areas that conduct federally grant funded "Click-It or Ticket" operations will get that grant money while those that don't won't get that grant money.
__________________
Get outta my OODA Loop
RickD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 21:55   #128
WCrawford
OC Zealot
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Do you think that there aren't people with the stance, "I'll never talk to any police officer under any circumstances"?
I will generally say this, but even I mean it to be when I'm being investigated. There might be a few people that will never, under any circumstance talk to the police, and I really can't blame them.
WCrawford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 22:07   #129
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Now there you go again, dismissing questions put to you.

Sure, I could answer these questions. I could post every piece of research I’ve collected and then some. The real question is why would I do that?

You have acknowledged that you have not collected research on checkpoints, but you have somehow already made up your mind. You honestly seem stubborn to me, Russ. You are comparing checkpoints run at different times and places, but that is not the issue. Roving/saturation patrols outperform checkpoints whether they are in close proximity to a tavern or otherwise.

I started researching this issue three years ago. I assumed, like many people, that checkpoints probably get the job done. It seems, at first glance, like a practical idea. A small amount of thought however, and you start to see the lack of logic. The clincher was when I started looking at police reports and research. They have shown, in every single case, that roving/saturation patrols outperform checkpoints. Roving patrols don’t sometimes work better than checkpoints. Roving patorls always work better than checkpoints. The scant research I have seen on deterrence shows the same thing.

It is sometimes baffling to me why people reject these facts. Is it cognitive dissonance? Is it the extra money police departments get from DOT? Is it the nature of internet discussions? Is it just human nature?

I always wonder why citizens minding their own business continually need to prove they are not doing anything wrong. The nature of checkpoints is that everyone who encounters a checkpoint is assumed to be doing something wrong until they can prove they are not doing anything wrong. That was not the approach of my parents, teachers, and others when I was growing up. It is, quite frankly, pretty un-American.

One thing the internet has done is brought this issue out in the open. The videos I posted showing people declining law enforcement cooperation seem to be more common. Legislators like those in Washington State and Texas are now realizing that checkpoints are just a cosmetic technique that does not accomplish anything. The checkpoints are actually counterproductive because they divert resources from roving patrols.

There are 11 states that prohibit checkpoints, either by statute or judicial ruling. I really don’t think any more of these states will approve checkpoints. The jurisprudence committee chair of the Washington State legislature told me that these bills will never even get read on the floor as long as he is chair. The majority of the legislature is mildly to strongly opposed. The Texas bills have failed every year since 2003.

The real X factor could be the economy. We are wildly spending and I don’t see an end to all of this turmoil any time soon. Fines in the form of seatbelt citations well over $100 will only go so far. The money will run out. Something’s going to eventually give out.

Last edited by NorthCarolinaLiberty; 03-10-2011 at 22:29..
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 22:07   #130
RickD
Pro-Open Curry
 
RickD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Arizona
Posts: 8,647
Send a message via AIM to RickD


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Do you think that there aren't people with the stance, "I'll never talk to any police officer under any circumstances"?
Well, yeah. They are called "attorneys." They have graduated from law school and have often passed their state bar exam. Many of them state that they "love the legal system," and yet, they insist on exercising their right to remain silent.

Quote:
Do you think that there are not people out there who view almost all officers as illegitimate and holding no authority whatsoever?
Sure, I guess.... But what percent of Americans (or even GT members) are them guys? And by what justification does TBO call someone who posts an article critical of the broad and all-too-unchallenged use of drug dogs as it pertains to Prolly-Cause?
__________________
Get outta my OODA Loop
RickD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 22:12   #131
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD View Post
Not really. To measure it, one has to design a study and collect data. Data from similar jurisdiction (as defined by criminological parameters commonly used). One jurisdiction with "Click-It Or Ticket" the other one without "Click-It Or Ticket." Compare the standard curves with a suitable statistical test based on the data type (binary, categorical, continuous, whatever).

That is exactly what was measured in the Maryland study I posted. It showed checkpoints are not a deterrent.

Most studies will find that areas that conduct federally grant funded "Click-It or Ticket" operations will get that grant money while those that don't won't get that grant money.

The Dept. of Transportation is a strong financial incentive that is hard for localities and states to decline.
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 22:19   #132
RickD
Pro-Open Curry
 
RickD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Arizona
Posts: 8,647
Send a message via AIM to RickD


Well, I shifted through page after page of this (off the rails at the end of page 2) and still don't see an answer to the question which TBO supplied...

Quote:
So, my question is, what is "anti-authority" as it relates to an American Citizen under the Constitution?
After receiving no answer, I realized that the most important question as far at GT is concerned is "What does anti-authority mean to TBO and others who used and/or agreed with that term?"

I can barely resist coming to the conclusion that the use of "anti-authority" in a GT CopTalk thread is of the same nature as calling someone a "racist." It is designed to impugn or dismiss and individual or an individual's post or an individual's idea. While not as nasty as being called a "racist," it's the best they can do under the circumstances.

Nitey Nite.

funny gifs

By the way, were the anti-Federalists anti-Authority?
__________________
Get outta my OODA Loop

Last edited by RickD; 03-10-2011 at 22:22..
RickD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 22:25   #133
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD View Post
Now, compare that with a similar seen in Bolivia:


Quote:
Federale: "Get the ***** out of your car, ****** bag!!"

Bolivian peasant: "Si', Senor."





See the difference?

Not to derail your thought Rick, but that scenario is much more likely in developed countries like Brazil and Argentina than in coutries like Bolivia. Law enforcement in poor countries is often afraid of citizens, partly because of poverty, and partly because of unstable governments.

The same thing is true in the Philippines. This is the experience of my Filipino wife and my experience from being in that country. Police often fear citizens just as much as citizens distrust the police. That country has certainly had its share of unstable governments. Filipino culture is very respectful, so it has very little to do with the ideas regarding anti-authority.

It seems a complex question, but I have noticed that more developed countries are often the ones that can lean towards being more authoritarian. I believe it is often accumulation of material items that can lead to protection of those items, but it can be more complex than that. There are exceptions, too.
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 22:51   #134
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,188
Sorry, Rick, I don't think you're discussing this in good faith. You've been given answers and dismiss them summarily, with no attempt to explore what's involved. You set and insist on standards, using words you refuse to define. Until you change some of this, there's no way I can add to a conversation with you.
__________________
"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 03-10-2011, 23:02   #135
TBO
CLM Number 122
Why so serious?
 
TBO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NRA Life Member
Posts: 45,517
Blog Entries: 1


"Intellectual Dishonesty".
__________________
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

"If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters".

"A person who won't reason has no advantage over one who can't reason."

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

“Ignorance is a lot like alcohol: the more you have of it, the less you are able to see its effect on you.”


Originally Posted by Rooster Rugburn:
Didn't the whole sheepdog thing actually start right here on Glock Talk? A bunch of wannabees bought a bunch of T-shirts and took an oath to defend those who won't defend themselves?
TBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2011, 00:30   #136
RickD
Pro-Open Curry
 
RickD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Arizona
Posts: 8,647
Send a message via AIM to RickD


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Sorry, Rick, I don't think you're discussing this in good faith.
I come back to six pages of horse-pucky and you try this crapola projection with me? My bullshiite detector-dog is wagging his tail in your general vicinity and lifting his leg (that's his alert signal).

Enough of thee.
__________________
Get outta my OODA Loop
RickD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2011, 08:09   #137
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,486
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Who filed the complaint that caused the arrest? The school did. Are the police to ignore the complaint?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD View Post
...I think you missed the irony.

The school teachers, operating under "Zero-Tolerance" policies (well-discussed on this web site and others), call the police for a stick figure drawing.

The police, normally having wide latitude (discretion, I think you'd call it), decide to parrot the school's Zero-Tolerance policy and arrest the student for said stick figure drawing.

So there you have it.
Well, perhaps history influenced their decisions...
Quote:
http://www2.indystar.com/library/fac...shootings.html

Sept. 26, 2003: A 13-year-old boy fired a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun into the ceiling of a Cleveland County, North Carolina, middle school. He also fired one shot into the closed door of a classroom filled with students. No one was injured.

July 17, 2000: In Renton, Wash., near Seattle, a 13-year-old boy was charged with shooting a handgun into the ceiling of the school cafeteria. More than 100 students were in the cafeteria at the time, but no one was injured. The boy, later identified as Josh Warnock, fled and was taken into custody at the home of his grandparents the following day

May 26, 2000: In Lake Worth, Fla., 13-year-old honor student Nathaniel Brazill shot a teacher in the face, killing him. Police said the seventh-grader had been sent home for throwing water balloons and returned to the school with a handgun he found in his grandfather's dresser

Feb. 29, 2000: A first-grade boy at Buell Elementary School in Mount Morris Township, Mich., fatally shot classmate Kayla Rolland, 6, after the two children had a verbal spat. He took the .32-caliber handgun from his uncle's home, where he was living.

Dec. 6, 1999: Seth Trickey, 13, fired at least 15-rounds at Fort Gibson Middle School in Fort Gibson, Okla., wounding four classmates. He was convicted on seven assault charges.

Mar. 24, 1998: Four girls and a teacher were shot to death and 10 others wounded during a false fire alarm at Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Ark. Two boys, Andrew Golden, 11, and Mitchell Johnson, 13, were accused of setting off the alarm and then opening fire from a nearby woods.
Perhaps those shootings and others (and there are others) provide justification for intervention.

As I posted before here and in other threads, I am hesitant to draw firm conclusions based on what probably are just parts of the circumstances surrounding an incident.

There are questions that beg asking. Like, "What else did the boy's therapist say about the him drawing his thoughts on paper? Was there significance in 'throwing the picture away' and feeling calmer? He did say he made the drawing to release anger."

The parents said to the reporter that they understand what he did was inappropriate. Well, what did they do, rather, what would they have done to let the boy know that? Would there have been consequences?

Why did the school administrators change their position? That has not been reported. The reporter writes, "According to the police report, “Tim” explained he made the drawing to release anger and would never hurt teachers or anyone. At first, the school did not want to press charges, but changed their mind when police called them later that night."

First, the information cited came from the police report. There is no reference in the article about interviews with the police. It also doesn't chronicle the events leading up to the boy's arrest. Doesn't anyone want to know who initially notified the police and when? Is there a Resource Officer assigned to the school? How about, "Why did the police respond as they did?"

In the video, the reporter said because of a holiday not all those involved in the event were available, but the would be the next day and there would be a response then.

Well, here is that report which confirms my earlier comment about prior events influencing their decisions. http://www.kdvr.com/kdvr-arvada-resp...,1074725.story

In their response the City said, "This detention, on its face, may seem egregious, however, there is background in this case that cannot be publicly discussed because the information regarding this juvenile is protected information and by law, we cannot release these facts.“

They go on to say, "Here in Colorado we have experienced numerous school shootings including Columbine High School, Platte Canyon High School, Youth With A Mission, Deer Creek Middle School, and a host of school shootings across the country. Some of these shootings have been perpetrated by juveniles as young as 11 years of age.”

“We must apply the lessons learned from these school shootings and take the necessary and appropriate steps to prevent another tragedy from occurring by taking all such threats seriously, thoroughly investigating them, and ensuring intervention takes place as early as possible.”

Have the parents requested a sit-down meeting with the police to discuss their procedures for handling non-violent juveniles? No one has said. They and the boy's therapist might present a strong case for a policy review. Have they?

See, lots of questions, and, as the City stated, many of the facts involved are shielded by privacy laws which are, in fact, designed to protect the boy.
__________________
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 03-11-2011, 09:40   #138
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,486
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD View Post
...No one has told us what "anti-authority" means and now you're using it as a definition within this thread. Cart before horse...
Okay, let's go Googling...
Quote:
http://similarminds.com/types/antiauthority.html

resents supervision, does not like to be bound by schedules or habits, prefers to do things when they feel ready, appreciation for anarchy, has a need for complete freedom, would rather work for self than a company, questions everything, wants things done their way, prone to behavior problems in school, gets angry when they don't get what they want, subversive, tends to dislike organized religion, fears confinement, values loyalty, challenging
Quote:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...anti-authority

resents supervision, does not like to be bound by schedules or habits, prefers to do things when they feel ready, appreciation for anarchy, has a need for complete freedom, would rather work for self than a company, questions everything, wants things done their way, prone to behavior problems in school, gets angry when they don't get what they want, subversive, tends to dislike organized religion, fears confinement, values loyalty, challenging
Perhaps a definition for authority is in order. Add the "anit-" where appropriate.
Quote:
http://dictionary.reference.com/etym...anti-authority

authority
early 13c., autorite "book or quotation that settles an argument," from O.Fr. auctorité (12c.; Mod.Fr. autorité), from L. auctoritatem (nom. auctoritas) "invention, advice, opinion, influence, command," from auctor "master, leader, author" (see author). Usually spelled with a -c- in English till 16c., when it was dropped, in imitation of the French. Meaning "power to enforce obedience" is from late 14c.; meaning "people in authority" is from 1610s. Authorities "those in charge, those with police powers" is recorded from mid-19c.
But, that's not what you're looking for, is it?

As said earlier, anti-authority is often a good thing. In the broad sense of resisting increasingly greater government involvement in our lives, it is good. That's the answer you're looking for, right?

No, that's a definition you agree with. It isn't what you're looking for.

Okay, back to Post #5,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Kinda a complicated question; lots of facets to the same issue, not all of which connect to each other.

In very, very broad terms, authority is what imposes order in a community. That can be parental authority in a family or legal authority in society. A segment of the community chafes under that, wholly happy to cause friction--loss of order--for others as long as they get their way. You might remember the recent WI thread: when the protesters were told, "go ahead and stay" some left. They didn't want to stay in the Capitol as much as they wanted to disrupt order and tranquility. Yet the balance between order and freedom is vital to the health of a society. (Read that last again; the whole "balance" thing is key to my views and this discussion.)

Cops see this every day. They are the visible manifestation of the state's authority and they bear the brunt of the juvenile "what about meeeee" rants. We're the ones telling you to turn down the music, the street is closed, those guys have a right to protest, you've had too much to drink---tons of stuff where you don't get it your way because society has a voice, too.

Remember our thread "Reason on consent searches"? The people, including you, who wanted to curtail LE authority (ability is a better word) to ask permission to search people's stuff? Classic example of what we're discussing here. Another example is the myriad of the "Don't ever talk to the police" threads: obstruction for the sake of obstruction, rationalized as exercising rights. Same thing with the dozens of posters in CI who won't respect a property owner's authority to ban guns because the sign wasn't just so, or they weren't told or concealed means concealed: pure rationalization of their disregard for authority in favor of their personal desires.

I now await the accusations of statism, sure to come from those who don't understand the two-sided nature of any contract, including social contracts. Or maybe they skipped over the part where I said how important balance is.
Followed by Post 12...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Rick, you need to look at the bigger picture. While some people filed ethics complaints out of honest concern, there's no doubt whatsoever that other filed on Palin purely as an attack. Pointing to people who're concerned doesn't negate the attacks.

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.

And many posters bring up stuff that is troubling, looking to exchange ideas or learn something. Others are simply anti-authority, playing "gotchya" even as they play with the truth.

Nowhere did TBO lump all posters into the anti-authority mememe crowd. That doesn't mean that those who fall there need to be given a pass on their bias.
Followed by Post 20...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
I look at the definition of anti-authority in a larger historical context. I believe that it once stood for a liberalism (totally different from today’s liberalism) grounded in valued qualities like individualism. It almost disappeared as quickly as we wrested it from Britain, as some of the founding fathers had to fight for basics like the Bill of Rights. Leaders like Jefferson and Jackson could even be described as anti-authority, even while serving as president.

This liberalism slowly degenerated into an insidious statism that enveloped the country with each passing decade. It became so entrenched that people’s criticisms are now often described as fringe. Anyone who describes the complexities of the Civil War beyond the popular slavery explanation must be a moon shining rebel. Those who criticize social security retirement benefits must be uncaring towards our seniors. Anyone who ever invokes the fourth amendment must be a criminal loving hippy from the 1960s.

It is unfortunate that some view anti-authority as people who question the actions, or even existence, of organizations like the TSA. If someone questions the existence of checkpoints, then they must be for drunks and illegals. Questioning zero tolerance, of course, must mean that you’re a rule breaker with something to hide.

It’s also too bad that things like TV and pop culture notions of balance have become the benchmark for evaluating the health of a society. Today’s world means that the person questioning anything might have an attitude and is probably due for some re-educating. Certainly the CSI watching audience on GlockTalk has accurately pegged the sociopathic GT members.

Time will tell if the U.S. has reached its peak and is on its way out. If that happens, it won’t be because of popular explanations regarding crime and antisocial behavior. Crime rises and falls over time, and its overall impact on contemporary society is insignificant. The OP mentioned the US Constitution. If we continue to ignore amendments like the 4th, 8th, and 10th, then we’ll certainly be on our way out.
As Sam said in Post #5, there are lots of facets to the same issue, not all of which connect to each other. There are fine lines separating various degrees of anti-authority behavior. When that behavior involves law enforcement, the anti-authority person considers it just the good and proper exercise of our Rights. Someone who holds an anti-authority position believes that it isn't their obligation or duty to make law enforcements job any easier, no matter how simple an act that might take. Some do believe they have the obligation and duty to make law enforcement's job as difficult as possible, walking that narrow line between rightful behavior and obstructionist behavior. Taunting law enforcement, seeing how close close to illegal behavior they can get, is a game for them. They really aren't concerned about the consequences of their behavior. They relish the idea of their day in court.

Am I getting closer to what you're looking for?

Of course, I am describing only a minute fraction of a fraction of those who carry a firearm for self defense, although the numbers are growing.

A far larger number are showing their anti-authority convictions through the political, legislative process, or mediation with government authorities in an effort to avoid, to prevent negative on-street encounters. I fall into that category.

Again, I know that isn't what you wanted, but hey, you behave the anti-authority way you want to, I'll behave the anti-authority way I want to.

__________________
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 03-11-2011, 10:36   #139
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,486
Blog Entries: 64
You forgot to answer this part of Sam's post...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Which part do you believe is an argument not made by the type of person I've called "anti-authority"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Do you think that there aren't people with the stance, "I'll never talk to any police officer under any circumstances"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD View Post
Well, yeah. They are called "attorneys." They have graduated from law school and have often passed their state bar exam. Many of them state that they "love the legal system," and yet, they insist on exercising their right to remain silent.
I thought your initial parameter was...
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
Sam asks a question under your broad parameter, "an American Citizen under the Constitution", but you answer with "They are called "attorneys."" Changing the rules?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Do you think that there are not people out there who view almost all officers as illegitimate and holding no authority whatsoever?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD View Post
Sure, I guess....
You lose credibility with the "dunno" smillie. You truly have never read of anyone with that view? You are not that naive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD View Post
But what percent of Americans (or even GT members) are them guys?
So now rarity of a person holding that position is important?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD View Post
And by what justification does TBO call someone who posts an article critical of the broad and all-too-unchallenged use of drug dogs as it pertains to Prolly-Cause?
Justification? Real life experiences are often the justification for opinions voiced by cops on GT. TBO, correct me if I am wrong.
__________________
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 03-11-2011, 10:42   #140
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,486
Blog Entries: 64
You quoted...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Sorry, Rick, I don't think you're discussing this in good faith.
...and here is the "Rest of the Story."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
You've been given answers and dismiss them summarily, with no attempt to explore what's involved. You set and insist on standards, using words you refuse to define. Until you change some of this, there's no way I can add to a conversation with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD View Post
I come back to six pages of horse-pucky and you try this crapola projection with me? My bullshiite detector-dog is wagging his tail in your general vicinity and lifting his leg (that's his alert signal).

Enough of thee.
It really helps to keep posts in context, especially when the rest of the post defines someone's position.

__________________
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 01:54.




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


Users Currently Online: 796
142 Members
654 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31