Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Breaking the law politely
2 views
Skip to first unread message
abelard
Apr 15, 2021, 11:42:19 AM4/15/21
to
On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 15:01:14 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
<incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 2021-04-15, Pancho <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 15/04/2021 14:15, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 15/04/2021 01:42 pm, Pancho wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/04/2021 12:38, Pamela wrote:
>>>
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>>>> Why are there few similar videos involving white civilians? I've
>>>>> seen many white posters say if they're stopped they just comply even
>>>>> if it seems unreasonable. But blacks do it differently. ...
>>>>> There is no doubt many American blacks are highly suspicious of the
>>>>> police and the police history contains many instances of brutality.
>>>>> However that does not give civilians the right to resist but many
>>>>> black civilians do so. Some do it as a reflex and others do it from
>>>>> training such as that video. Surely neither is legitimate.
>>>>
>>>> Black civil disobedience towards the police is a way of showing
>>>> dissatisfaction. Civil disobedience has always been a core weapon for
>>>> instigating change. A core mechanism that the underprivileged use to
>>>> fight oppressive authority.
>>>
>>> It is not oppressive to enforce the laws against theft, robbery,
>>> assaults, murders, drug dealing, etc.
>>>
>>
>> Gosh, a typical straw-man. I never said it was, but it might be.
>>
>> For instance would it be oppressive for the police to give you a penalty
>> every time you broke an law, whilst not doing so for others. For
>> instance if you got a penalty every time you drove 21mph in a 20 mph zone?
>>
>> It is clear that many members of the black community believe they suffer
>> oppressive behaviour from the police even when they are law abiding.
>
>Perception can be wrong, though, particularly if you have been brought up
>believing something that you never question. A black client of a law firm I
>worked for was pulled over by the feds because he was driving erratically. He
>blew a positive breath test. He was on record telling his eight year old son
>that when he is older, he can look forward to being pulled over just because he
>is black.
>
>"Muh oppression" and "racism" is a standard tactic among the black criminal
>fraternity for not having to feel responsible for any crimes they have
>committed. They can just tell themselves that white people would have gotten
>away with it.
paranoia sets up dangerous positive feedbacks
the black is paranoid of the police, so acts negative/
suspicious/uncooperative....so the police learn to
expect it...so they in turn become nervous/irritable
thence black/gypsies or other minorities in turn learn
to distrust police(and other would-be 'authorities')
this is a generalized problem in human behaviour
you cannot stop this until people learn better
people skills
thus such skills are better taught systematically in society
<incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 2021-04-15, Pancho <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 15/04/2021 14:15, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 15/04/2021 01:42 pm, Pancho wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/04/2021 12:38, Pamela wrote:
>>>
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>>>> Why are there few similar videos involving white civilians? I've
>>>>> seen many white posters say if they're stopped they just comply even
>>>>> if it seems unreasonable. But blacks do it differently. ...
>>>>> There is no doubt many American blacks are highly suspicious of the
>>>>> police and the police history contains many instances of brutality.
>>>>> However that does not give civilians the right to resist but many
>>>>> black civilians do so. Some do it as a reflex and others do it from
>>>>> training such as that video. Surely neither is legitimate.
>>>>
>>>> Black civil disobedience towards the police is a way of showing
>>>> dissatisfaction. Civil disobedience has always been a core weapon for
>>>> instigating change. A core mechanism that the underprivileged use to
>>>> fight oppressive authority.
>>>
>>> It is not oppressive to enforce the laws against theft, robbery,
>>> assaults, murders, drug dealing, etc.
>>>
>>
>> Gosh, a typical straw-man. I never said it was, but it might be.
>>
>> For instance would it be oppressive for the police to give you a penalty
>> every time you broke an law, whilst not doing so for others. For
>> instance if you got a penalty every time you drove 21mph in a 20 mph zone?
>>
>> It is clear that many members of the black community believe they suffer
>> oppressive behaviour from the police even when they are law abiding.
>
>Perception can be wrong, though, particularly if you have been brought up
>believing something that you never question. A black client of a law firm I
>worked for was pulled over by the feds because he was driving erratically. He
>blew a positive breath test. He was on record telling his eight year old son
>that when he is older, he can look forward to being pulled over just because he
>is black.
>
>"Muh oppression" and "racism" is a standard tactic among the black criminal
>fraternity for not having to feel responsible for any crimes they have
>committed. They can just tell themselves that white people would have gotten
>away with it.
paranoia sets up dangerous positive feedbacks
the black is paranoid of the police, so acts negative/
suspicious/uncooperative....so the police learn to
expect it...so they in turn become nervous/irritable
thence black/gypsies or other minorities in turn learn
to distrust police(and other would-be 'authorities')
this is a generalized problem in human behaviour
you cannot stop this until people learn better
people skills
thus such skills are better taught systematically in society
Incubus
Apr 15, 2021, 1:56:27 PM4/15/21
to
>
> this is a generalized problem in human behaviour
>
> you cannot stop this until people learn better
> people skills
> thus such skills are better taught systematically in society
as systematically.
Pancho
Apr 15, 2021, 2:31:16 PM4/15/21
to
On 15/04/2021 18:56, Incubus wrote:
>> paranoia sets up dangerous positive feedbacks
>>
>> the black is paranoid of the police, so acts negative/
>> suspicious/uncooperative....so the police learn to
>> expect it...so they in turn become nervous/irritable
>> thence black/gypsies or other minorities in turn learn
>> to distrust police(and other would-be 'authorities')
>
> Absolutely.
>
But using emotive language like paranoid, is unhelpful in that it
>> paranoia sets up dangerous positive feedbacks
>>
>> the black is paranoid of the police, so acts negative/
>> suspicious/uncooperative....so the police learn to
>> expect it...so they in turn become nervous/irritable
>> thence black/gypsies or other minorities in turn learn
>> to distrust police(and other would-be 'authorities')
>
> Absolutely.
>
prejudges the issue. It suggests that the poor relationship between the
black community and the police is initiated by black mistrust. I think
we can be almost certain that historically the police force was racist.
So the genesis of black trust is well founded.
Your point is valid in it being in the best interest of both the police
and black communities to get along. The black community desperately need
better policing to protect them.
How that is achieved is another matter.
One thing that is obviously wrong is the criminalisation of commonly
used drugs, such as cannabis. Black people face being prosecuted for
drug offences that white people like Boris and Dave would not be. The
law is clearly being applied unequally. So that large proportion of the
black community that take drugs naturally see the police as the enemy.
The large proportion of the white community who take drugs are
ambivalent because they face a very low risk of prosecution.
Perhaps if the police restricted stop and search to knives and guns they
would get more support from the black community. They could present
themselves more easily as protectors.
Incubus
Apr 16, 2021, 6:43:16 AM4/16/21
to
On 2021-04-15, Pancho <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 15/04/2021 18:56, Incubus wrote:
>
>>> paranoia sets up dangerous positive feedbacks
>>>
>>> the black is paranoid of the police, so acts negative/
>>> suspicious/uncooperative....so the police learn to
>>> expect it...so they in turn become nervous/irritable
>>> thence black/gypsies or other minorities in turn learn
>>> to distrust police(and other would-be 'authorities')
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>
>
> But using emotive language like paranoid, is unhelpful in that it
> prejudges the issue. It suggests that the poor relationship between the
> black community and the police is initiated by black mistrust. I think
> we can be almost certain that historically the police force was racist.
> So the genesis of black trust is well founded.
One could argue that historically, the black community has had more than its
>
>>> paranoia sets up dangerous positive feedbacks
>>>
>>> the black is paranoid of the police, so acts negative/
>>> suspicious/uncooperative....so the police learn to
>>> expect it...so they in turn become nervous/irritable
>>> thence black/gypsies or other minorities in turn learn
>>> to distrust police(and other would-be 'authorities')
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>
>
> But using emotive language like paranoid, is unhelpful in that it
> prejudges the issue. It suggests that the poor relationship between the
> black community and the police is initiated by black mistrust. I think
> we can be almost certain that historically the police force was racist.
> So the genesis of black trust is well founded.
share of criminal elements and therefore the distrust by the Police is well
founded. Of course, that would be considered racist but no less true for it.
> Your point is valid in it being in the best interest of both the police
> and black communities to get along. The black community desperately need
> better policing to protect them.
else. America has had a huge problem with gangs almost from its inception as
an independent nation. Leftists traditionally blamed this on poverty (which is
only partly correct) but now like to blame it on "white supremacism" (which is
not at all correct). Our similar problem with black gangs here is more
connected with black identity than anything else. They don't experience the
kind of poverty that America has and do not live here because their ancestors
were brought over as slaves but they nevertheless bought into the mentality of
American rap music.
> How that is achieved is another matter.
>
> One thing that is obviously wrong is the criminalisation of commonly
> used drugs, such as cannabis.
> Black people face being prosecuted for
> drug offences that white people like Boris and Dave would not be.
racist to prosecute them? I suppose by that logic it is racist to prosecute
members of grooming gangs because that disproportionately affects Pakistanis.
> The
> law is clearly being applied unequally. So that large proportion of the
> black community that take drugs naturally see the police as the enemy.
behaviour for some people but don't mistake that for something being natural.
> The large proportion of the white community who take drugs are
> ambivalent because they face a very low risk of prosecution.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/849200/statistics-on-race-and-the-cjs-2018.pdf
See figure 4.03.
Also, white people are more likely to be convicted for drug offences:
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/courts-sentencing-and-tribunals/prosecutions-and-convictions/latest#by-ethnicity-of-defendant-and-offence
Black people have a higher risk of a custodial sentence but the statistics
don't take into account various circumstances such as previous conviction etc.
We do know that black people are far more likely to reoffend.
> Perhaps if the police restricted stop and search to knives and guns they
> would get more support from the black community. They could present
> themselves more easily as protectors.
Pancho
Apr 16, 2021, 7:26:31 AM4/16/21
to
On 16/04/2021 11:43, Incubus wrote:
> On 2021-04-15, Pancho <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 15/04/2021 18:56, Incubus wrote:
>>
>>>> paranoia sets up dangerous positive feedbacks
>>>>
>>>> the black is paranoid of the police, so acts negative/
>>>> suspicious/uncooperative....so the police learn to
>>>> expect it...so they in turn become nervous/irritable
>>>> thence black/gypsies or other minorities in turn learn
>>>> to distrust police(and other would-be 'authorities')
>>>
>>> Absolutely.
>>>
>>
>> But using emotive language like paranoid, is unhelpful in that it
>> prejudges the issue. It suggests that the poor relationship between the
>> black community and the police is initiated by black mistrust. I think
>> we can be almost certain that historically the police force was racist.
>> So the genesis of black trust is well founded.
>
> One could argue that historically, the black community has had more than its
> share of criminal elements and therefore the distrust by the Police is well
> founded. Of course, that would be considered racist but no less true for it.
>
Yes, but in a chicken and egg sense I'm pretty sure the police racism
> On 2021-04-15, Pancho <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 15/04/2021 18:56, Incubus wrote:
>>
>>>> paranoia sets up dangerous positive feedbacks
>>>>
>>>> the black is paranoid of the police, so acts negative/
>>>> suspicious/uncooperative....so the police learn to
>>>> expect it...so they in turn become nervous/irritable
>>>> thence black/gypsies or other minorities in turn learn
>>>> to distrust police(and other would-be 'authorities')
>>>
>>> Absolutely.
>>>
>>
>> But using emotive language like paranoid, is unhelpful in that it
>> prejudges the issue. It suggests that the poor relationship between the
>> black community and the police is initiated by black mistrust. I think
>> we can be almost certain that historically the police force was racist.
>> So the genesis of black trust is well founded.
>
> One could argue that historically, the black community has had more than its
> share of criminal elements and therefore the distrust by the Police is well
> founded. Of course, that would be considered racist but no less true for it.
>
came first.
My view is that your argument is consistent with the feedback loop
argument made earlier. If you wanted to be really naughty you could make
a different argument. Something along the lines that the black community
are inherently criminal due to lower IQ. I'm sure RH would help if that
is the way you wanted to go.
[snip]
>
> So because more people from a certain background are doing something, it is
> racist to prosecute them? I suppose by that logic it is racist to prosecute
> members of grooming gangs because that disproportionately affects Pakistanis.
>
No, the argument is not that more of them take drugs. The argument is
> So because more people from a certain background are doing something, it is
> racist to prosecute them? I suppose by that logic it is racist to prosecute
> members of grooming gangs because that disproportionately affects Pakistanis.
>
that they are more likely to be punished for doing so. The argument is
something along the lines. Say 50% of black kids and 50% of whites kids
take drugs, most of them otherwise law abiding. Because the black kids
tend to live in violent high crime areas they are more likely to be
subjected to purely speculative weapons searches, quite reasonably. The
drugs are likely to be discovered as a side effect of the reasonable
weapons search. So you get a much higher proportion of black kids
prosecuted for drugs. There is no need for these kids themselves to be
any more criminal than their white drug taking counterparts who are
never searched and hence never charged.
Because drug taking is so widespread the police lose the trust of a huge
proportion of the black community.
>> The
>> law is clearly being applied unequally. So that large proportion of the
>> black community that take drugs naturally see the police as the enemy.
>
> There is nothing "natural" about taking drugs. It might be normalised
> behaviour for some people but don't mistake that for something being natural.
>
>> The large proportion of the white community who take drugs are
>> ambivalent because they face a very low risk of prosecution.
>
> Not true.
>
> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/849200/statistics-on-race-and-the-cjs-2018.pdf
>
> See figure 4.03.
>
> Also, white people are more likely to be convicted for drug offences:
>
> https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/courts-sentencing-and-tribunals/prosecutions-and-convictions/latest#by-ethnicity-of-defendant-and-offence
>
is far less likely to be searched and hence detected and will not appear
in these statistics. You appear to be quoting conviction probability
conditioned upon the crime being detected. That is very different from
an unconditioned conviction rate. My point was all about detection.
> Black people have a higher risk of a custodial sentence but the statistics
> don't take into account various circumstances such as previous conviction etc.
> We do know that black people are far more likely to reoffend.
>
>> Perhaps if the police restricted stop and search to knives and guns they
>> would get more support from the black community. They could present
>> themselves more easily as protectors.
>
> I doubt that would change people's perception.
>
middle class motorists lest they lose their support. They aim for
consensual policing. I'm just making a similar argument with respect to
drugs and the black community.
I'm pretty sure a large proportion of the UK do not support current
drugs laws, black and white.
Pamela
Apr 16, 2021, 8:28:22 AM4/16/21
to
measures, are more likely to demonstrate criminal behaviours.
Blacks consistently score badly on IQ tests although the Brookings
Institute (below) argues this is a result of the immediate culture
they are brought up in rather than anything genetic. For example,
things like the lack of a father in the family (four times more
likely amongst blacks than whites in the UK and in the US).
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-black-white-test-score-gap-
why-it-persists-and-what-can-be-done/
JNugent
Apr 16, 2021, 9:17:11 AM4/16/21
to
On 15/04/2021 07:31 pm, Pancho wrote:
> On 15/04/2021 18:56, Incubus wrote:
>
>>> paranoia sets up dangerous positive feedbacks
>>>
>>> the black is paranoid of the police, so acts negative/
>>> suspicious/uncooperative....so the police learn to
>>> expect it...so they in turn become nervous/irritable
>>> thence black/gypsies or other minorities in turn learn
>>> to distrust police(and other would-be 'authorities')
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>
>
> But using emotive language like paranoid, is unhelpful in that it
> prejudges the issue. It suggests that the poor relationship between the
> black community and the police is initiated by black mistrust. I think
> we can be almost certain that historically the police force was racist.
> So the genesis of black trust is well founded.
>
> Your point is valid in it being in the best interest of both the police
> and black communities to get along. The black community desperately need
> better policing to protect them.
>
> How that is achieved is another matter.
>
> One thing that is obviously wrong is the criminalisation of commonly
> used drugs, such as cannabis. Black people face being prosecuted for
> drug offences that white people like Boris and Dave would not be.
I don't know about Boris and Dave (whoever they are), but *I* certainly
> On 15/04/2021 18:56, Incubus wrote:
>
>>> paranoia sets up dangerous positive feedbacks
>>>
>>> the black is paranoid of the police, so acts negative/
>>> suspicious/uncooperative....so the police learn to
>>> expect it...so they in turn become nervous/irritable
>>> thence black/gypsies or other minorities in turn learn
>>> to distrust police(and other would-be 'authorities')
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>
>
> But using emotive language like paranoid, is unhelpful in that it
> prejudges the issue. It suggests that the poor relationship between the
> black community and the police is initiated by black mistrust. I think
> we can be almost certain that historically the police force was racist.
> So the genesis of black trust is well founded.
>
> Your point is valid in it being in the best interest of both the police
> and black communities to get along. The black community desperately need
> better policing to protect them.
>
> How that is achieved is another matter.
>
> One thing that is obviously wrong is the criminalisation of commonly
> used drugs, such as cannabis. Black people face being prosecuted for
> drug offences that white people like Boris and Dave would not be.
would not be arrested for illegal use of things such as cannabis.
The reason for that is really simple and has nothing to do with my
ethnic background.
> The
> law is clearly being applied unequally. So that large proportion of the
> black community that take drugs
> naturally see the police as the enemy.
> The large proportion of the white community who take drugs are
> ambivalent because they face a very low risk of prosecution.
non-existent.
> Perhaps if the police restricted stop and search to knives and guns they
> would get more support from the black community. They could present
> themselves more easily as protectors.
individual - just too much to ask?
abelard
Apr 16, 2021, 9:51:26 AM4/16/21
to
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:17:09 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
>I'm not ambivalent on it. My risk of prosecution is not "low". it's
>non-existent.
your optimism and confidence are unbounded!
wrote:
>I'm not ambivalent on it. My risk of prosecution is not "low". it's
>non-existent.
Pancho
Apr 16, 2021, 10:24:21 AM4/16/21
to
On 16/04/2021 14:17, JNugent wrote:
>
> Is complying with the law - all of it, not just the bits chosen by the
> individual - just too much to ask?
>
The most commonly broken laws are traffic laws. Driving at 21 mph in a
>
> Is complying with the law - all of it, not just the bits chosen by the
> individual - just too much to ask?
>
20 mph zone is a crime. You can evade it as much as you like, but it is
a crime.
I don't smoke cannabis either, but I don't worry about people who do. I
do worry about the many people who drive badly.
I trust you aren't the type of person who believes in obeying some laws
and not other.
JNugent
Apr 16, 2021, 11:06:37 AM4/16/21
to
substances.
Just as easy as it is to avoid risk of prosecution for armed robbery.
JNugent
Apr 16, 2021, 11:10:44 AM4/16/21
to
On 16/04/2021 03:24 pm, Pancho wrote:
> On 16/04/2021 14:17, JNugent wrote:
>
>> Is complying with the law - all of it, not just the bits chosen by the
>> individual - just too much to ask?
> >
>
> The most commonly broken laws are traffic laws. Driving at 21 mph in a
> 20 mph zone is a crime. You can evade it as much as you like, but it is
> a crime.
And if the breach is minor, you'll get a FPN. Too egregious for that,
> On 16/04/2021 14:17, JNugent wrote:
>
>> Is complying with the law - all of it, not just the bits chosen by the
>> individual - just too much to ask?
> >
>
> The most commonly broken laws are traffic laws. Driving at 21 mph in a
> 20 mph zone is a crime. You can evade it as much as you like, but it is
> a crime.
and you'll get an opportunity to explain it to the bench.
Was there anything else?
> I don't smoke cannabis either, but I don't worry about people who do. I
> do worry about the many people who drive badly.
> I trust you aren't the type of person who believes in obeying some laws
> and not other.
invalidate the offence).
Possession of illegal substances, assault on police, resisting arrest
and attempted robbery are not among the offences in that category.
Nobody has a reasonable expectation of being let off with a warning for
any of them.
Pancho
Apr 16, 2021, 12:46:09 PM4/16/21
to
On 16/04/2021 16:10, JNugent wrote:
> On 16/04/2021 03:24 pm, Pancho wrote:
>
>> On 16/04/2021 14:17, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> Is complying with the law - all of it, not just the bits chosen by
>>> the individual - just too much to ask?
>> >
>>
>> The most commonly broken laws are traffic laws. Driving at 21 mph in a
>> 20 mph zone is a crime. You can evade it as much as you like, but it
>> is a crime.
>
> And if the breach is minor, you'll get a FPN. Too egregious for that,
> and you'll get an opportunity to explain it to the bench.
>
> Was there anything else?
>
Yes, that is the punishment. You were talking about people complying
> On 16/04/2021 03:24 pm, Pancho wrote:
>
>> On 16/04/2021 14:17, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> Is complying with the law - all of it, not just the bits chosen by
>>> the individual - just too much to ask?
>> >
>>
>> The most commonly broken laws are traffic laws. Driving at 21 mph in a
>> 20 mph zone is a crime. You can evade it as much as you like, but it
>> is a crime.
>
> And if the breach is minor, you'll get a FPN. Too egregious for that,
> and you'll get an opportunity to explain it to the bench.
>
> Was there anything else?
>
with the law. You always muddy the water.
The majority of motorists deliberately break the law. You are just a
hypocrite, you go on about drugs and ignore motoring offences.
[snip]
>> I trust you aren't the type of person who believes in obeying some
>> laws and not other.
>
> It is possible to commit certain offences inadvertently (it doesn't
> invalidate the offence).
>
exception.
> Possession of illegal substances, assault on police, resisting arrest
> and attempted robbery are not among the offences in that category.
>
> Nobody has a reasonable expectation of being let off with a warning for
> any of them.
fine of £90, less than a speeding FPN.
You have gone on about illegal drugs, but I still don't understand what
your concern is apart from they are illegal?
Incubus
Apr 16, 2021, 12:52:25 PM4/16/21
to
On 2021-04-16, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 16/04/2021 02:51 pm, abelard wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:17:09 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm not ambivalent on it. My risk of prosecution is not "low". it's
>>> non-existent.
>>
>> your optimism and confidence are unbounded!
>
> It's dead easy to escape prosecution for possession and use of illegal
> substances.
Unless you are "fitted up" :)
> On 16/04/2021 02:51 pm, abelard wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:17:09 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm not ambivalent on it. My risk of prosecution is not "low". it's
>>> non-existent.
>>
>> your optimism and confidence are unbounded!
>
> It's dead easy to escape prosecution for possession and use of illegal
> substances.
JNugent
Apr 16, 2021, 3:42:52 PM4/16/21
to
On 16/04/2021 05:46 pm, Pancho wrote:
> On 16/04/2021 16:10, JNugent wrote:
>> On 16/04/2021 03:24 pm, Pancho wrote:
>>> On 16/04/2021 14:17, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is complying with the law - all of it, not just the bits chosen by
>>>> the individual - just too much to ask?
>
>>> The most commonly broken laws are traffic laws. Driving at 21 mph in
>>> a 20 mph zone is a crime. You can evade it as much as you like, but
>>> it is a crime.
>
>> And if the breach is minor, you'll get a FPN. Too egregious for that,
>> and you'll get an opportunity to explain it to the bench.
>> Was there anything else?
>
> Yes, that is the punishment. You were talking about people complying
> with the law. You always muddy the water.
>
> The majority of motorists deliberately break the law. You are just a
> hypocrite, you go on about drugs and ignore motoring offences.
> [snip]
I don't ignore "motoring offences". I weigh them realistically within
> On 16/04/2021 16:10, JNugent wrote:
>> On 16/04/2021 03:24 pm, Pancho wrote:
>>> On 16/04/2021 14:17, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is complying with the law - all of it, not just the bits chosen by
>>>> the individual - just too much to ask?
>
>>> The most commonly broken laws are traffic laws. Driving at 21 mph in
>>> a 20 mph zone is a crime. You can evade it as much as you like, but
>>> it is a crime.
>
>> And if the breach is minor, you'll get a FPN. Too egregious for that,
>> and you'll get an opportunity to explain it to the bench.
>> Was there anything else?
>
> Yes, that is the punishment. You were talking about people complying
> with the law. You always muddy the water.
>
> The majority of motorists deliberately break the law. You are just a
> hypocrite, you go on about drugs and ignore motoring offences.
> [snip]
the scale of offences (many of which, connected with the use of motor
vehicles are merely administrative).
If you are trying to compare parking for five minutes too long on a
meter space with offences involving robbery, assault and the discharge
of firearms with intent to threaten / injure / kill, you need your
brain examined.
>>> I trust you aren't the type of person who believes in obeying some
>>> laws and not other.
>
>> It is possible to commit certain offences inadvertently (it doesn't
>> invalidate the offence).
>>
> People speed on purpose.
both of those.
> In some places it is the norm rather than the exception...
...and must be appropriately punished.
No problem.
But only someone seriously unhinged "thinks" it is an excuse to commit
violent crime, including resisting arrest.
>> Possession of illegal substances, assault on police, resisting arrest
>> and attempted robbery are not among the offences in that category.
>> Nobody has a reasonable expectation of being let off with a warning
>> for any of them.
> Erm, possession of cannabis would normally be a warning. Or on the spot
> fine of £90, less than a speeding FPN.
> You have gone on about illegal drugs, but I still don't understand what
> your concern is apart from they are illegal?
sort of accidental activity one can commit without intent. Enforcing the
law on them is not oppression.
As with a great many other types of offence, if you are not prepared to
accept the penalty, don't commit the crime.
JNugent
Apr 16, 2021, 3:45:26 PM4/16/21
to
But even *if* it were to happen (clearly, some people have been watching
too much TV and reading too many editions of The Guardian), that would
not entitle me to use violence to resist arrest. Would it?
Pancho
Apr 17, 2021, 5:37:01 AM4/17/21
to
On 16/04/2021 20:42, JNugent wrote:
>
> I don't ignore "motoring offences". I weigh them realistically within
> the scale of offences (many of which, connected with the use of motor
> vehicles are merely administrative).
>
But people flout speed limits all the time, more enforcement is required.
>
> I don't ignore "motoring offences". I weigh them realistically within
> the scale of offences (many of which, connected with the use of motor
> vehicles are merely administrative).
>
> If you are trying to compare parking for five minutes too long on a
> meter space with offences involving robbery, assault and the discharge
> of firearms with intent to threaten / injure / kill, you need your
> brain examined.
>
Instead of your straw man I was comparing to drugs, I gave cannabis as
an example.
>>>> I trust you aren't the type of person who believes in obeying some
>>>> laws and not other.
>>
>>> It is possible to commit certain offences inadvertently (it doesn't
>>> invalidate the offence).
>>>
>> People speed on purpose.
>
> Yes, some people do. Some people do it inadvertently. The same people do
> both of those.
>
>> In some places it is the norm rather than the exception...
>
> ...and must be appropriately punished.
>
But for the record, will you confirm you believe motorists should be
punished for driving 21 mph in a 20 mph zone?
> No problem.
>
> But only someone seriously unhinged "thinks" it is an excuse to commit
> violent crime, including resisting arrest.
>
>>> Possession of illegal substances, assault on police, resisting arrest
>>> and attempted robbery are not among the offences in that category.
>>> Nobody has a reasonable expectation of being let off with a warning
>>> for any of them.
>
>> Erm, possession of cannabis would normally be a warning. Or on the
>> spot fine of £90, less than a speeding FPN.
>
> So what's the complaint?
>
>> You have gone on about illegal drugs, but I still don't understand
>> what your concern is apart from they are illegal?
>
> I have not "gone on" about them. I pointed out that they are not some
> sort of accidental activity one can commit without intent. Enforcing the
> law on them is not oppression.
>
> As with a great many other types of offence, if you are not prepared to
> accept the penalty, don't commit the crime.
your crimes. Which was my point with respect to drugs.
JNugent
Apr 17, 2021, 1:00:25 PM4/17/21
to
On 17/04/2021 10:37 am, Pancho wrote:
> On 16/04/2021 20:42, JNugent wrote:
>
>> I don't ignore "motoring offences". I weigh them realistically within
>> the scale of offences (many of which, connected with the use of motor
>> vehicles are merely administrative).
>>
>
> But people flout speed limits all the time, more enforcement is required.
Perhaps.
> On 16/04/2021 20:42, JNugent wrote:
>
>> I don't ignore "motoring offences". I weigh them realistically within
>> the scale of offences (many of which, connected with the use of motor
>> vehicles are merely administrative).
>>
>
> But people flout speed limits all the time, more enforcement is required.
But your view on that sounds a little extreme.
>> If you are trying to compare parking for five minutes too long on a
>> meter space with offences involving robbery, assault and the discharge
>> of firearms with intent to threaten / injure / kill, you need your
>> brain examined.
>>
> Yes, if I drink baby blood and worship Satan, I'm a rum fellow.
>
> Instead of your straw man I was comparing to drugs, I gave cannabis as
> an example.
What's your point? That some offences shouldn't be enforced at all?
>>>>> I trust you aren't the type of person who believes in obeying some
>>>>> laws and not other.
>
>>>> It is possible to commit certain offences inadvertently (it doesn't
>>>> invalidate the offence).
>
>>> People speed on purpose.
>
>> Yes, some people do. Some people do it inadvertently. The same people
>> do both of those.
>
>>> In some places it is the norm rather than the exception...
>
>> ...and must be appropriately punished.
>
> What???? Speeding is hardly ever punished.
> But for the record, will you confirm you believe motorists should be
> punished for driving 21 mph in a 20 mph zone?
Anyone who argues about 21mph has a screw loose.
>
>> No problem.
>> But only someone seriously unhinged "thinks" it is an excuse to commit
>> violent crime, including resisting arrest.
>>
>>>> Possession of illegal substances, assault on police, resisting
>>>> arrest and attempted robbery are not among the offences in that
>>>> category.
>>>> Nobody has a reasonable expectation of being let off with a warning
>>>> for any of them.
>>
>>> Erm, possession of cannabis would normally be a warning. Or on the
>>> spot fine of £90, less than a speeding FPN.
All of them can be punished with a prison sentence.
>> No problem.
>> But only someone seriously unhinged "thinks" it is an excuse to commit
>> violent crime, including resisting arrest.
>>
>>>> Possession of illegal substances, assault on police, resisting
>>>> arrest and attempted robbery are not among the offences in that
>>>> category.
>>>> Nobody has a reasonable expectation of being let off with a warning
>>>> for any of them.
>>
>>> Erm, possession of cannabis would normally be a warning. Or on the
>>> spot fine of £90, less than a speeding FPN.
>> So what's the complaint?
> Motorists complain all the time.
across the face of the planet at 21mph and seem to "think" that it is a
serious (rather then an administrative) offence.
>>> You have gone on about illegal drugs, but I still don't understand
>>> what your concern is apart from they are illegal?
>
>> I have not "gone on" about them. I pointed out that they are not some
>> sort of accidental activity one can commit without intent. Enforcing
>> the law on them is not oppression.
>
> Laws are unfair and their enforcement is often oppressive.
>> As with a great many other types of offence, if you are not prepared
>> to accept the penalty, don't commit the crime.
>
> Yes, it is a fine thing to say if you do not expect to get a penalty for
> your crimes. Which was my point with respect to drugs.
reasons in the world.
If *I* can avoid that risk, so can anyone.
Incubus
Apr 19, 2021, 5:16:07 AM4/19/21
to
they can make the claim of Police brutality. That could then be used to cast
doubt on the original arrest.
0 new messages