• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Feelings vs Rights, Amerika in 20 years?

2OLD2W8

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
138
Location
Black Waters
My legalese leaves a lot to be desired, but I think you can see what I'm inferring.


Any physical action or speech committed intentionally or inadvertently by any legal U.S. Citizen may be restricted if the feelings of the aggrieved party are impaired or distressed in any manner, whether perceived or real in nature. Should the aggrieved party retain the status of a disenfranchised person, the offending party may be charged with willfully committing a hate crime.

I'm getting more cynical as the years fly by and I think this is possible in the next 20 years. I hope I'm dead wrong for the sake of my descendants.




2OLD2W8
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
There is no need to spell it out - especially not in the very overt way you have attempted to do so.

It's all in the interpretation of existing laws that seek to ensure that while we may have all been created equally we certainly are not treated equally.

Your proposed legislation moves us from a rule of law to the rule by mob action - if enough people "feel" aggreived they must perforce be aggreived.

I'm holding out that when it comes time for push to come to shove someone who retains the ability to understand basic concepts understands that there is no inherent (God-given, if you incline to that language) right to not feel all butt-hurted. Which is good, because my first inclination in performing a cognitive realignment procedure is to create a physical hurt in the butt area, to be followed closely in time by creating a physical hurt in the cranial region. Thank goodness I have an internal locus of control that stops me from acting on first inclinations without considering the consequences and deciding if I am willing to accept them as opposed to determining a different path to accomplishing my goals.

stay safe.
 

2OLD2W8

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
138
Location
Black Waters
Which is good, because my first inclination in performing a cognitive realignment procedure is to create a physical hurt in the butt area, to be followed closely in time by creating a physical hurt in the cranial region.
stay safe.

I probably should have prefaced my post with... Based on what I have seen and heard throughout this land for the last 20 years. I post this hypothetical legal statute for conversational purposes only. I did not intend for the post to be so vague as to infer that what I wrote was what I believe and propose. Sorry for any confusion.

Skidmark, I will gladly assist you with your cognitive realignment procedure!
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
My legalese leaves a lot to be desired, but I think you can see what I'm inferring.


Any physical action or speech committed intentionally or inadvertently by any legal U.S. Citizen may be restricted if the feelings of the aggrieved party are impaired or distressed in any manner, whether perceived or real in nature. Should the aggrieved party retain the status of a disenfranchised person, the offending party may be charged with willfully committing a hate crime.

I'm getting more cynical as the years fly by and I think this is possible in the next 20 years. I hope I'm dead wrong for the sake of my descendants.
2OLD2W8
Perception is the reality of the one who perceives. ;) The protections offered by the SYG laws are good examples of that concept. Pax...
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Perception is the reality of the one who perceives. ;) The protections offered by the SYG laws are good examples of that concept. Pax...

That perception is usually presented with the caveat of what a reasonable person similarly situated would believe the situation to present.

In other words, just saying you felt threatened is not going to cut it. You need to convince the trier of facts that any other reasonable person finding themself in the same situation woluld also feel threatened.

There are some folks here on OCDO who seem to feel that the mere presence of a police officer presents a threat that would support responding with lethal force. If not for the reasonable person caveat they might in fact be tempted to in fact use lethal force.

stay safe.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
That perception is usually presented with the caveat of what a reasonable person similarly situated would believe the situation to present.

In other words, just saying you felt threatened is not going to cut it. You need to convince the trier of facts that any other reasonable person finding themself in the same situation woluld also feel threatened.

There are some folks here on OCDO who seem to feel that the mere presence of a police officer presents a threat that would support responding with lethal force. If not for the reasonable person caveat they might in fact be tempted to in fact use lethal force.

stay safe.


That one is way over the top, Skid. You're saying we have unreasonable would-be cop-killers as members. Your "seems" and "mights" aren't going to cover up your actual accusation. Lets have some names and links to posts.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
That one is way over the top, Skid. You're saying we have unreasonable would-be cop-killers as members. Your "seems" and "mights" aren't going to cover up your actual accusation. Lets have some names and links to posts.

Sorry, but thanks in part to the actions of the moderators and administrators, reported posts have been edited or deleted. As for those who skirt the edge of the assertion - again reporting their posts is the appropriate method of dealing with them, as opposed to naming them publically.

There are times when you either trust what I have said, trust what I have said because you have seen/read similar, or you write off my assertion as hyperebole. This might be one of those times.

stay safe.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Sorry, but thanks in part to the actions of the moderators and administrators, reported posts have been edited or deleted. As for those who skirt the edge of the assertion - again reporting their posts is the appropriate method of dealing with them, as opposed to naming them publically.

There are times when you either trust what I have said, trust what I have said because you have seen/read similar, or you write off my assertion as hyperebole. This might be one of those times.

stay safe.

OK. I'll accept that.

If you see another such post, PM me. I'd like to know too who needs watching.
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
I'm not as cynical as the OP. In fact, not cynical at all. Two areas where we trump every nation on earth THAT I AM AWARE OF - are speech rights and firearm rights. As far as the latter goes, it has been getting better and better - landmark court decisions in our favor, more and more states turning into shall issue. Several - constitutional carry. Some scary unconstitutional speech laws, like my states overbroad unconstitutional cyberstalking law, but same laws WHEN applied have been getting struck down.


FIRE is helping to quell censorious speech codes on college campuses. And their win rate is wonderful.

I'm not happy about obamaco unitary executive rubbish, murderdroning US citizens /wo due cause, etc.

But overall, I think we are doing pretty well, war on drugs, and bong hits for jesus case (oh, and RAICH) notwithstanding

Also, citizen initiatives are getting great laws passed on state level. My state has legalized marijuana. It's awesome to respond to a residence as a police officer and seeing a bong sitting on the living room table and nobody caring.

With the intertoobs, we've never had greater access to speech, and access to promoting our own speech, political commentary etc. as well as youtube to post videos. It's a more radical freedom advance than the gutenberg press. We have access to speech from all over the nation, from the North Korean propaganda websites, to local newspapers all over this awesome country.

In my state, search and seizure law has continuously, o n the whole, been more and more restrictive of state power - we no longer search vehicles incident to arrest, for example, like in most states.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I'm not as cynical as the OP. In fact, not cynical at all. Two areas where we trump every nation on earth THAT I AM AWARE OF - are speech rights and firearm rights. As far as the latter goes, it has been getting better and better - landmark court decisions in our favor, more and more states turning into shall issue. Several - constitutional carry. Some scary unconstitutional speech laws, like my states overbroad unconstitutional cyberstalking law, but same laws WHEN applied have been getting struck down.


FIRE is helping to quell censorious speech codes on college campuses. And their win rate is wonderful.

I'm not happy about obamaco unitary executive rubbish, murderdroning US citizens /wo due cause, etc.

But overall, I think we are doing pretty well, war on drugs, and bong hits for jesus case (oh, and RAICH) notwithstanding

Also, citizen initiatives are getting great laws passed on state level. My state has legalized marijuana. It's awesome to respond to a residence as a police officer and seeing a bong sitting on the living room table and nobody caring.

With the intertoobs, we've never had greater access to speech, and access to promoting our own speech, political commentary etc. as well as youtube to post videos. It's a more radical freedom advance than the gutenberg press. We have access to speech from all over the nation, from the North Korean propaganda websites, to local newspapers all over this awesome country.

In my state, search and seizure law has continuously, o n the whole, been more and more restrictive of state power - we no longer search vehicles incident to arrest, for example, like in most states.

The mere fact FIRE has to exist shows the huge problem.

Executive powers has continually increased no matter the president this isn't a step forward and is something rather huge to speak of almost dismissively.

Raids have increased on legal medical dispensaries, we just had one in Tacoma, these raids don't happen usually without the help of local LEA's. Bong hits for Jesus case and Raich are there so until those are overturned and judges and prosecutors and cops stop using them it won't get better.

In our state didn't Dawson take a recent hit? Pretext stops are getting watered down. Yes past judges have upheld our constitution better the ones we have there do not, Richards was the lone dissent in many decisions was accused by one judge that he believed in the "fallacy of fixed words" when he cited the law.

Why does it take an initiative and a law to get cops to not care about a bong, oh and many still do care hence why they then move a lot of it willingly to the hands of the feds, doesn't hurt that they receive more ill gotten gains when it's moved to a federal level.

Yep private individuals are being more active in exposing what already exists it is making some behave better, but the gov don't like these tools so they have ruled that our emails and electronic communications are not private.
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
The mere fact FIRE has to exist shows the huge problem.

Executive powers has continually increased no matter the president this isn't a step forward and is something rather huge to speak of almost dismissively.

Raids have increased on legal medical dispensaries, we just had one in Tacoma, these raids don't happen usually without the help of local LEA's. Bong hits for Jesus case and Raich are there so until those are overturned and judges and prosecutors and cops stop using them it won't get better.

In our state didn't Dawson take a recent hit? Pretext stops are getting watered down. Yes past judges have upheld our constitution better the ones we have there do not, Richards was the lone dissent in many decisions was accused by one judge that he believed in the "fallacy of fixed words" when he cited the law.

Why does it take an initiative and a law to get cops to not care about a bong, oh and many still do care hence why they then move a lot of it willingly to the hands of the feds, doesn't hurt that they receive mre ill gotten gains when it's moved to a federal level.

Yep private individuals are being more active in exposing what already exists it is making some behave better, but the gov don't like these tools so they have ruled that our emails and electronic communications are not private.

You concentrate on the negative. I concentrate on the positive. Both are out there. Like I said, Im not a cynic

as for the bong thing, I haven;'t made a misdemeanor MJ arrest in a long time. Many cops didn't care about bongs even before it was legalized, but the drug war is NOT the fault of cops. We don't make (stupid) law. Legislators do. Blame them, not us. THEY are the reason some cops care(d) about bongs. Without laws against it, it would be irrelevant.

And again, you'll concentrate on the negative, I'll concerntrate on the positive.

fwiw, I m not aware of Ladson being "watered down". Numerous cases since Ladson have helped define what is pretext and what isn;'t. I think the WA courts have done a pretty good job. The problem with outlawing pretext stops is you inject a subjective element into the analysis, which has always been problematic . But given the no pretext thang, the case law I have read since Ladson has done a great job of applying it.

We are lucky in WA state to have a constitution that protects PRIVACY specifically, the federal one does not (not in that wording).

Again, I;m not a cynic.

Life does NOT suck. It's pretty awesome. It's even more awesome in WA - right to privacy, no income tax, shal issue CCW, open carry w/o permit etc. We have some pretty sweet freedoms here.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
You concentrate on the negative. I concentrate on the positive. Both are out there. Like I said, Im not a cynic

as for the bong thing, I haven;'t made a misdemeanor MJ arrest in a long time. Many cops didn't care about bongs even before it was legalized, but the drug war is NOT the fault of cops. We don't make (stupid) law. Legislators do. Blame them, not us. THEY are the reason some cops care(d) about bongs. Without laws against it, it would be irrelevant.

And again, you'll concentrate on the negative, I'll concerntrate on the positive.

fwiw, I m not aware of Ladson being "watered down". Numerous cases since Ladson have helped define what is pretext and what isn;'t. I think the WA courts have done a pretty good job. The problem with outlawing pretext stops is you inject a subjective element into the analysis, which has always been problematic . But given the no pretext thang, the case law I have read since Ladson has done a great job of applying it.

We are lucky in WA state to have a constitution that protects PRIVACY specifically, the federal one does not (not in that wording).

Again, I;m not a cynic.

Life does NOT suck. It's pretty awesome. It's even more awesome in WA - right to privacy, no income tax, shal issue CCW, open carry w/o permit etc. We have some pretty sweet freedoms here.

First off don't take my criticizing of the state as a lack of pride in the things they get right, I am proud about many things of the state I was born in.

And then, duh we don't concentrate on the chains that are not attached to us. ;) Plus what I did is show that the positives you mentioned are not that sound from the states point of view.

Right to privacy-first off there is no "right to privacy" there is property rights one Washington is eroding very very fast.

Have you gotten a call from a government agency telling you they are going to spend three days in your house going through your computer and your records? I have...they decided not to when I told them I have guns I carry guns and I will not put them away because they come to my house.

I pay a large amount of my "income", I prefer wages since there is an SCOTUS decison that hasn't been overturned that defines income as corporate profit, into taxes our state has one of the highest rates of taxes, just because its not in the form of an "income" tax. We do have shall issue CPL after you submit for your government checks, lets make it no permit necessary. Yes we can OC w/o permit but don't get into your car without your CPL or on a bicycle. We do have some sweet freedoms but they are not ours here they are everyone's everywhere we are born with them the state doesn't grant me these freedoms although they like to believe they do.

I have skeptic tendencies not cynic.

I don't have a general distrust of people, matter of fact my anarchal and libertarian philosophy is one of a general trust of humans acting as individuals in a society, the more I study history and look at the problems that do exist today the overwhelming majority of societal problems are because of our government, I will do everything I can to limit that, if that irritates some people's sense of statism for good so be it.


P.S. Life is good, it also has it's up and downs and worries and can always be better, at no time has any "government" been the best solution or couldn't have been more liberal.
There are many too who don't make a living off of money stolen from others and will have a nice comfy retirement on the continual theft, those who have to struggle every day to look for another client to compete with others for the next job, who has been forced to live month to month or have little to save for their elderly years because a huge portion of their earnings are stolen.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I routinely see folks here making a fundamental logical mistake.

Just because a word has one definition does not preclude it having others.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
That perception is usually presented with the caveat of what a reasonable person similarly situated would believe the situation to present.

In other words, just saying you felt threatened is not going to cut it. You need to convince the trier of facts that any other reasonable person finding themself in the same situation woluld also feel threatened.

There are some folks here on OCDO who seem to feel that the mere presence of a police officer presents a threat that would support responding with lethal force. If not for the reasonable person caveat they might in fact be tempted to in fact use lethal force.

stay safe.
The "reasonable and prudent man" principal applies to almost all laws regarding personal interactions. The first sentence in my previous post represents the psychological aspect of "perception" in general, while the second sentence is merely an example of how perception may influence/dictate our actions while the "prudent man" awaits quietly in the wings. ;) Pax...
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,931
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I routinely see folks here making a fundamental logical mistake.

Just because a word has one definition does not preclude it having others.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Res judicata facit ex albo nigrum, ex nigro album, ex curvo rectum, ex recto curvum.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
<snip> Which is good, because my first inclination in performing a cognitive realignment procedure is to create a physical hurt in the butt area, to be followed closely in time by creating a physical hurt in the cranial region. <snip>
Uh, you gunna be around in 20 years to put a hurt on some butts?
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I routinely see folks here making a fundamental logical mistake.

Just because a word has one definition does not preclude it having others.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>


And I routinely see some make fundamental logical mistake of not using the context to grasp at how the word is being used.
 
Top