I'm ok, with unmarked cars (well actually I hate them, but legally speaking I can roll with it) as long as there is a uniformed officer in it. There's actually a law in Indiana that makes just this sort of thing illegal.
Yeah, I guess the lack of a uniform is the bigger problem here. This basically looks like any random road rage incident, and not the conduct expected of a public servant.
Unmarked cops should have very specific uses, and traffic stops should not be one of those.
I'm not entirely sure he was undercover, I've heard many reports that he was, in fact, off duty. Also, if you watch the video, the unmarked/off duty cop pulls up after the rider is pulled over already, presumably by the marked officer behind him - I'm leaning towards the latter, since if he was going to pull the guy over and he was in an unmarked car, he'd likely have lights and sirens behind the grill, on the dash, so on, rather than having to wait for the guy to pull over anyway.
If he was actually off-duty, he needs to have his badge taken away.
Abso-fucking-loutely.
There are very strict rules for brandishing a weapon...
Assumably, they don't include pulling your firearm out on a routine stop, of a moto rider who stopped voluntarily, and who has made no provoking moves and said nothing, and brandishing it at him.
Assumably, they don't include pulling your firearm out on a routine stop, of a moto rider who stopped voluntarily, and who has made no provoking moves and said nothing, and brandishing it at him.
Even if they do, so what? The issue at stake is that the cop/state are punishing the guy for recording the encounter. That should not only not be a crime, but should in fact be an affirmative right of a citizen.
Assumably, they don't include pulling your firearm out on a routine stop, of a moto rider who stopped voluntarily, and who has made no provoking moves and said nothing, and brandishing it at him.
Even if they do, so what? The issue at stake is that the cop/state are punishing the guy for recording the encounter. That should not onlynotbe a crime, but should in fact be an affirmative right of a citizen.
Just so. In fact, I think there should be repercussions for members of law enforcement who unnecessarily impinge on the rights of citizens.
Even if they do, so what? The issue at stake is that the cop/state are punishing the guy for recording the encounter. That should not onlynotbe a crime, but should in fact be an affirmative right of a citizen.
Well, one assumes that it would be another hardly surprising law from the United States, even if they do.
So, tell me, Rym, a Guy threatens you for a few weeks, really stalking you and such. Then, out of nowhere, the guy punches you in the face. Would you be happy with him getting punished for, say, the intimidation and threats, but not for punching you in the face? How about if the judge rules that he acted in self defence, and gets away completely free, and you're made to pay his court costs, because the guy had to miss a day of work?
No, you wouldn't sit back and let it go that way, you'd be fucking ropeable, because he's getting away with doing something against you, and you're getting bent over and fucked for it. And in much the same way, even if the rider gets off the charge, and the cop isn't touched for his behaviour, we would collectively be fucking well spitting chips. Yes, that is the main issue, but you can't cast aside the fact that the cop had his firearm drawn in a situation that didn't warrant it and was using it to intimidate someone with absolutely no reason to behave as such, possibly while even off duty.
but you can't cast aside the fact that the cop had his firearm drawn in a situation that didn't warrant it and was using it to intimidate someone with absolutely no reason to behave as such, possibly while even off duty.
It's a nonissue. That sort of thing happens all the time, but people can't prove it.
The real issue remains the illegality of recording. That's what's worthy of general outrage and debate. Police abusing their powers more generally is a big problem, one that is solved much more easily by allowing citizen recording and retransmission of police actions.
Yeah, I don't understand how anyone can be against total freedom to record basically everything. What are they going to do to this guy? Make him leave? Or shut one eye?
It's a nonissue. That sort of thing happens all the time, but people can't prove it.
Yes, it does. But in this case, it can be proven, and therefore, it should be part of the discussion, as it can be proven that he acted in a manner than he should be punished for. People commit all sorts of crimes all the time that can't be proved that they did it, that doesn't magically make these things lawful acts - we just prosecute and punish the people for whom there IS proof that they did it.
Further, it should be part of the discussion because you have to wonder, why are the police reacting this severely if the officer in question did nothing wrong? It's pretty fucking obvious this guy is being shaken down because he taped a cop doing something explicitly wrong and possibly illegal, depending on if he was off duty or not. Yes, it would be a big issue if they were hammering him for taping a cop doing nothing out of the ordinary, but it's pretty obvious they're throwing the book at the guy as severely as they are, because this officer screwed the pooch severely, and this guy accidentally caught the police with their dick in the dog. This guy wasn't arrested on the spot, he was arrested after the fact when this got out on Youtube, on top of that, they've raided his house, and confiscated his computers. They didn't give a fuck until it became known to people that they did it, and when it became so, they start bullying him to shut up about it, using the powers given to them.
If you knew what you were talking about here, you wouldn't be dismissing it as a non-issue, because the facts of the case make it into something entirely different to what you're making it out to be - this isn't just a case of "Oh, this guy recorded the cops, and now he's being smacked down" it's a case of "This guy recorded a cop doing something explicitly wrong and possibly illegal, and they're abusing their powers in an effort to censor him."
If you think it's just the issue that he's been arrested for recording the police, then please, stop talking. You're too goddamn ignorant to be helpful, and are wasting the time of everyone involved.
But in this case, it can be proven, and therefore, it should be part of the discussion, as it can be proven that he acted in a manner than he should be punished for.
No, because it's not the core of the debate. Whatever bad behavior the cop engaged in is an entirely different discussion. The only thing worth discussing here is one's right to record bad behavior.
the facts of the case make it into something entirely different to what you're making it out to be - this isn't just a case of "Oh, this guy recorded the cops, and now he's being smacked down" it's a case of "This guy recorded a cop doing something explicitly wrong and possibly illegal, and they're abusing their powers in an effort to censor him."
They're both the same. The law gives the police the power to do both of these indiscriminately. It's a bad law. The former situation, from the perspective of citizen rights, is just as bad as the latter. The latter has an additional irrelevant factor: that's all.
f you think it's just the issue that he's been arrested for recording the police, then please, stop talking. You're too goddamn ignorant to be helpful, and are wasting the time of everyone involved.
Or, maybe grownups are trying to discuss civil liberties without having to conflate irrelevant details into the discussion.
Even if the cop had handed him a puppy and was smiling at the time, the law still allows said cop to jail him for recording the encounter. That is the point of discussion. That is the abusive law. If there is some other law that allows the off-duty cop to brandish his weapon in that manner, it is an entirely separate matter of debate, which is equally reprehensible. If there isn't some law which allowed this, then it's just a rogue cop abusing his power. Again, a higher-order problem, solved to a degree by addressing this lower-order problem.
So calm down and consider what we're actually discussing.
Yeah, I don't understand how anyone can be against total freedom to record basically everything.
I don't like the idea of citizens being allowed to record an active crime scene investigation. Right now, crime scenes are not considered public property, and it needs to remain that way. Most everything else is fine and should be allowed. This situation is totally ridiculous.
There is another issue related to this, though. Let's think about the situation in New Delhi. For the lazy, the traffic police in New Delhi have created a Facebook page where ordinary citizens may upload photos of drivers violating traffic laws. They use these photos to issue tickets.
When we allow every citizen to record, we may create a situation where every citizen effectively becomes a police officer.
Personally, I dislike knowing that any untrained schmo with a camera has some kind of power. It smacks very much of nosy, NIMBY-ish neighbors and vigilante justice. We have police specifically to be an impartial force to implement the laws.
On the other hand, when the police prove too few, too incompetent, or too untrustworthy to do their job, it seems like turning to the average citizen is the only thing that makes sense.
Personally, I dislike knowing that any untrained schmo with a camera has some kind of power. It smacks very much of nosy, NIMBY-ish neighbors and vigilante justice. We have police specifically to be an impartial force to implement the laws.
It's already that way. Public spaces in most states are public spaces. Pick your nose? I may have video. ;^) Wait until personal blackboxes become more prevalent, and things will really get messy.
Personally, I dislike knowing that any untrained schmo with a camera has some kind of power. It smacks very much of nosy, NIMBY-ish neighbors and vigilante justice. We have police specifically to be an impartial force to implement the laws.
It's already that way. Public spaces in most states are public spaces. Pick your nose? I may have video. ;^) Wait until personal blackboxes become more prevalent, and things will really get messy.
Well, I don't know about the admissibility of most citizen-recorded stuff. The thing in New Delhi quite literally deputizes every single person with a camera and makes them into law enforcement.
Groups certainly enforce a code of conduct through expected behavior and implied consequences, but police are sort of special in that we give them extra authority. I'm just not sure about extending this extra authority to absolutely everyone out there.
I'm just not sure about extending this extra authority to absolutely everyone out there.
Of course not. But I believe that police, in the course of their duties, should be subject to constant third-party recorded surveillance. I'm fine with that not being available to the general public without a court order, FOIA request, or the like, or until a particular investigation is concluded.
But any action an on-duty police officer takes in a public space should be free for any recording, retransmission, or other use under all circumstances without restriction. (I believe anything visible or audible in a public space should be subject to the same, but I digress).
I'm fine with that not being available to the general public without a court order, FOIA request, or the like, or until a particular investigation is concluded.
That's probably the best place to start. Some kind of alternate agency that controls the cameras would be necessary.
So did you read the thing about the New Delhi police? What do you think about that?
So did you read the thing about the New Delhi police? What do you think about that?
If a red light camera can testify against me in a court of law, then I see no reason why any camera can't. It's illegal to litter. People get away with it because cops aren't everywhere. As a citizen, should I gather public evidence and present it to the DA, I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to charge the litterer. Of course, the evidence in the video had better be damning, or the case is lost.
Speeding is the same way. We should either raise the speed limits or perfectly enforce it. Cameras are the only way to perfectly enforce it. Why not citizen cameras (if they are accurate)?
Of course, this will all be made moot when perfect CG is in the hands of the average person...
Um, testing and verification? The impartial placement of the cameras? That's the big concern. Citizens are uncontrolled variables, which makes the credibility of their testimony questionable.
Also, sometimes shit happens with cameras as well as video. It will look and/or sound like one thing is happening, when it is in fact a completely different thing. I always remember this one dude showed me a picture from a magazine. It looked like some soldiers were pointing their guns at unarmed, helpless, innocent people. He also had the original photo from the photographer. A whole bunch of crazy dudes throwing rocks and other dangerous/deadly implements were cropped out in the magazine. There was no Photoshopping, just cropping, so how would you even know?
Sure, but you'll wind up clogging up the courts with crap evidence. It takes time and money to figure out whether or not a particular piece of evidence is actually usable, and if you start increasing the influx of unusable evidence...
Third-party cameras are definitely the first step. I'm not sure about how things will go after that.
Or, maybe grownups are trying to discuss civil liberties without having to conflate irrelevant details into the discussion.
Then why are you still here, you arrogant, ignorant little child? You've obviously about as much place in this discussion as a fetus does in the UN security council, you narcissistic cretin.
So calm down and consider what we're actually discussing.
Calm down? I'm perfectly calm. Have you forgotten so quickly that this is simply how I talk? Oh, no, I forgot, you have to be wrapped in metaphorical tissue paper and cottonballs when being spoken to. Have a teaspoon of cement and harden up, buttercup. This is honestly why it's more fun to argue with Scott, because he might not speak clearly, but at least he's not as soft as a junket sandwich.
As for what we're discussing? Funny, I thought we were discussing the police misusing their power to try to squash someone who caught them doing something wrong, which is even more worthy of outrage and discussion, because then it's not just "Oh, you can't record us at all" as a blanket statement. By reducing it to a simple issue of "Oh, He's arrested for recording them" then you're ignoring half the issue.
Allow me to educate you, while offending your delicate sensibilities at the same time, princess. And yes, I'm going to ratchet up the offensiveness in the way I'm talking, half because you were foolish enough to think that it indicated that I wasn't calm, and half for my own amusement.
Christ, do you even know what he's being charged with? He's being charged with Wiretapping violations, including one count of possession of "a device... primarily useful for the purpose of surreptitious interception of oral communications". Do you know that Maryland's Wiretap laws require one to have a reasonable expectation of privacy, as was not the case, since it was on an open road, with other motorists around, and even another policeman visible at one point in the video. Actually, speaking of the video, Do you know what that model of helmet cam looks like? Let me show you, since if you've obviously not even read up on the case, you're not going to have bothered to look up the type of camera he was using, that being a GoPro helmet camera - That's right, it's not some little extreme sports style tiny tube glued on a helmet - it looks like a big, silver fucking handheld camera hanging off the side of your helmet, or in this case, since you can see his visor come towards the camera when he pushes it up, presumably on top of the helmet. Not exactly very fucking surreptitious now, is it?
Did you even watch the video, or read the facts of the case? When he pulled up at an exit, A man leaps out of his completely normal looking car, in street clothes, pulls a gun, and starts shouting for you to get off your motorbike, without identifying himself as so much as the king and queen of cheese, let alone as a police officer.
I've already told you once, little daisy, that he was not arrested on the day, and now I'm going to fill you in on the rest. Not only was he - to the best of our knowledge - not asked to turn the camera off at any point, or at the least, was not asked to do so at any point. In fact, he turned the camera off as soon as he was allowed by the officer. The camera was - obviously - not confiscated at any point before the video became known. Graber, the rider, was given a speeding ticket on the spot and told to go on his way. It wasn't until give days after that Graber posted it on youtube, and five days after that to when it became known to the state police, who then obtained a warrant for violation of the state wiretap laws - even though none occurred - and not only was he arrested, but all of his family's computers and hard drives were confiscated, along with his video camera. On top of that, somehow, his speeding ticket magically got elevated to "egregious traffic violation" just for that extra little kick in the ass.
You haven't read the opinion of the Maryland Attorney general's office, have you? The one that clearly states that a police stop is not a private conversation, and is not covered by state wiretapping laws, or heard that the State's Attorney is still deciding if he should proceeding with the case despite? Did you even know that this all happened in March? No? I didn't think so, my fuzzy little peach.
What you're missing - other than a spine, kitten - is that just because you pick to wave a banner that says "Being arrested for taping the police is totally not cool, man" does not mean that this is the entirety of the case and the issue, no matter how much you click your ruby heels together and wish, Dorothy - Unless you're willing to suggest that infringing someone's right to film the the police in a public space(or anything else, just about) by preventing them from taking pictures with a strongly worded lecture and a written warning is the same as infringing upon someone's right to film the police or just about anything else in a public space by beating the shit out of them, dragging them away, and keeping them locked in the basement. After all, are they not both the same? Since the real big issue is that they're not being allowed their right to film the police or whatever else, not that in one scenario, they're locked in a basement, beaten half to death and given no medical assistance.
Do you see the point of what I'm saying, here, or are you still a little too shaken up by being insulted every few sentences? YES, it is important that we stop the abuse of civil liberties by the police, but if we don't pay attention to how they're doing it, then nothing is achieved or even really discussed or thought about - after all, a bunch of adu...no, I can't really call a group with you in it a group of adults, so rather, a group of people, standing around going "Infringing civil liberties is bad, MMKAY?" and agreeing with each other is not a discussion, it's an echo chamber - Not that I think you're against just having an echo chamber, since then, everyone's agreeing with you even though you're not even having a serious discussion, just a fucking circle jerk about a civil liberties issue that has been settled - while not on the legal front, but certainly at any point you have the capability of intelligently speaking about it - to the point where discussing it would be pointless anyway. YES, we get it, sweetie, Taping the police in their public business should be perfectly legal, and even possibly encouraged. In case you haven't noticed, we're agreeing with you, so let's stop banging on that drum now, okay?
Now that we have that covered - What's the point of just saying that much without discussing the case in it's entirety? Yes, his civil liberties were infringed, but without discussing the method or the reason they were infringed upon, all you're stuck saying is "Yep, shouldn't be infringing on them there civil liberties. Yep. Freedom should be free. Yep." So pay attention, little one - Sometimes, you need to discuss things other than already closed discussions where everyone you're speaking to is agreeing, even though they might be big meanie poopyheads and actually say something different to what you're saying, and yes, my fuzzy wuzzy little bumbley bee, they can disagree with you and still be intelligent, polite, nice, and happy people. I'm none of those things, but then again, people who are not nice, polite, happy or intelligent might disagree with you from time to time too.
Are we done now, and can I be confident that you've actually learned a few things here, or at the very least, if you didn't, It's your fault, not mine? Can we now discuss more than the narrow part of the issue you've decided to wave your flag for, since that more than the section of the issue you chose might actually be important? I know I've gotten what I wanted, here, which is a few minutes of amusement, and the possibility of further amusement. The possibility of educating you a little is just a side bonus. P.s - To whom posts the usual "Words words words" emote - screw you too.
Comments
So, tell me, Rym, a Guy threatens you for a few weeks, really stalking you and such. Then, out of nowhere, the guy punches you in the face. Would you be happy with him getting punished for, say, the intimidation and threats, but not for punching you in the face? How about if the judge rules that he acted in self defence, and gets away completely free, and you're made to pay his court costs, because the guy had to miss a day of work?
No, you wouldn't sit back and let it go that way, you'd be fucking ropeable, because he's getting away with doing something against you, and you're getting bent over and fucked for it. And in much the same way, even if the rider gets off the charge, and the cop isn't touched for his behaviour, we would collectively be fucking well spitting chips. Yes, that is the main issue, but you can't cast aside the fact that the cop had his firearm drawn in a situation that didn't warrant it and was using it to intimidate someone with absolutely no reason to behave as such, possibly while even off duty.
The real issue remains the illegality of recording. That's what's worthy of general outrage and debate. Police abusing their powers more generally is a big problem, one that is solved much more easily by allowing citizen recording and retransmission of police actions.
Further, it should be part of the discussion because you have to wonder, why are the police reacting this severely if the officer in question did nothing wrong? It's pretty fucking obvious this guy is being shaken down because he taped a cop doing something explicitly wrong and possibly illegal, depending on if he was off duty or not. Yes, it would be a big issue if they were hammering him for taping a cop doing nothing out of the ordinary, but it's pretty obvious they're throwing the book at the guy as severely as they are, because this officer screwed the pooch severely, and this guy accidentally caught the police with their dick in the dog. This guy wasn't arrested on the spot, he was arrested after the fact when this got out on Youtube, on top of that, they've raided his house, and confiscated his computers. They didn't give a fuck until it became known to people that they did it, and when it became so, they start bullying him to shut up about it, using the powers given to them.
If you knew what you were talking about here, you wouldn't be dismissing it as a non-issue, because the facts of the case make it into something entirely different to what you're making it out to be - this isn't just a case of "Oh, this guy recorded the cops, and now he's being smacked down" it's a case of "This guy recorded a cop doing something explicitly wrong and possibly illegal, and they're abusing their powers in an effort to censor him."
If you think it's just the issue that he's been arrested for recording the police, then please, stop talking. You're too goddamn ignorant to be helpful, and are wasting the time of everyone involved.
Even if the cop had handed him a puppy and was smiling at the time, the law still allows said cop to jail him for recording the encounter. That is the point of discussion. That is the abusive law. If there is some other law that allows the off-duty cop to brandish his weapon in that manner, it is an entirely separate matter of debate, which is equally reprehensible. If there isn't some law which allowed this, then it's just a rogue cop abusing his power. Again, a higher-order problem, solved to a degree by addressing this lower-order problem.
So calm down and consider what we're actually discussing.
There is another issue related to this, though. Let's think about the situation in New Delhi. For the lazy, the traffic police in New Delhi have created a Facebook page where ordinary citizens may upload photos of drivers violating traffic laws. They use these photos to issue tickets.
When we allow every citizen to record, we may create a situation where every citizen effectively becomes a police officer.
Personally, I dislike knowing that any untrained schmo with a camera has some kind of power. It smacks very much of nosy, NIMBY-ish neighbors and vigilante justice. We have police specifically to be an impartial force to implement the laws.
On the other hand, when the police prove too few, too incompetent, or too untrustworthy to do their job, it seems like turning to the average citizen is the only thing that makes sense.
Groups certainly enforce a code of conduct through expected behavior and implied consequences, but police are sort of special in that we give them extra authority. I'm just not sure about extending this extra authority to absolutely everyone out there.
But any action an on-duty police officer takes in a public space should be free for any recording, retransmission, or other use under all circumstances without restriction. (I believe anything visible or audible in a public space should be subject to the same, but I digress).
So did you read the thing about the New Delhi police? What do you think about that?
Speeding is the same way. We should either raise the speed limits or perfectly enforce it. Cameras are the only way to perfectly enforce it. Why not citizen cameras (if they are accurate)?
Of course, this will all be made moot when perfect CG is in the hands of the average person...
Also, let's say a video isn't doctored, but staged. I could disguise myself as my enemy and video myself littering. Mwahahaha!
Third-party cameras are definitely the first step. I'm not sure about how things will go after that.
As for what we're discussing? Funny, I thought we were discussing the police misusing their power to try to squash someone who caught them doing something wrong, which is even more worthy of outrage and discussion, because then it's not just "Oh, you can't record us at all" as a blanket statement. By reducing it to a simple issue of "Oh, He's arrested for recording them" then you're ignoring half the issue.
Allow me to educate you, while offending your delicate sensibilities at the same time, princess. And yes, I'm going to ratchet up the offensiveness in the way I'm talking, half because you were foolish enough to think that it indicated that I wasn't calm, and half for my own amusement.
Christ, do you even know what he's being charged with? He's being charged with Wiretapping violations, including one count of possession of "a device... primarily useful for the purpose of surreptitious interception of oral communications".
Do you know that Maryland's Wiretap laws require one to have a reasonable expectation of privacy, as was not the case, since it was on an open road, with other motorists around, and even another policeman visible at one point in the video.
Actually, speaking of the video, Do you know what that model of helmet cam looks like? Let me show you, since if you've obviously not even read up on the case, you're not going to have bothered to look up the type of camera he was using, that being a GoPro helmet camera -
That's right, it's not some little extreme sports style tiny tube glued on a helmet - it looks like a big, silver fucking handheld camera hanging off the side of your helmet, or in this case, since you can see his visor come towards the camera when he pushes it up, presumably on top of the helmet. Not exactly very fucking surreptitious now, is it?
Did you even watch the video, or read the facts of the case? When he pulled up at an exit, A man leaps out of his completely normal looking car, in street clothes, pulls a gun, and starts shouting for you to get off your motorbike, without identifying himself as so much as the king and queen of cheese, let alone as a police officer.
I've already told you once, little daisy, that he was not arrested on the day, and now I'm going to fill you in on the rest. Not only was he - to the best of our knowledge - not asked to turn the camera off at any point, or at the least, was not asked to do so at any point. In fact, he turned the camera off as soon as he was allowed by the officer. The camera was - obviously - not confiscated at any point before the video became known. Graber, the rider, was given a speeding ticket on the spot and told to go on his way. It wasn't until give days after that Graber posted it on youtube, and five days after that to when it became known to the state police, who then obtained a warrant for violation of the state wiretap laws - even though none occurred - and not only was he arrested, but all of his family's computers and hard drives were confiscated, along with his video camera. On top of that, somehow, his speeding ticket magically got elevated to "egregious traffic violation" just for that extra little kick in the ass.
You haven't read the opinion of the Maryland Attorney general's office, have you? The one that clearly states that a police stop is not a private conversation, and is not covered by state wiretapping laws, or heard that the State's Attorney is still deciding if he should proceeding with the case despite? Did you even know that this all happened in March? No? I didn't think so, my fuzzy little peach.
What you're missing - other than a spine, kitten - is that just because you pick to wave a banner that says "Being arrested for taping the police is totally not cool, man" does not mean that this is the entirety of the case and the issue, no matter how much you click your ruby heels together and wish, Dorothy - Unless you're willing to suggest that infringing someone's right to film the the police in a public space(or anything else, just about) by preventing them from taking pictures with a strongly worded lecture and a written warning is the same as infringing upon someone's right to film the police or just about anything else in a public space by beating the shit out of them, dragging them away, and keeping them locked in the basement.
After all, are they not both the same? Since the real big issue is that they're not being allowed their right to film the police or whatever else, not that in one scenario, they're locked in a basement, beaten half to death and given no medical assistance.
Do you see the point of what I'm saying, here, or are you still a little too shaken up by being insulted every few sentences? YES, it is important that we stop the abuse of civil liberties by the police, but if we don't pay attention to how they're doing it, then nothing is achieved or even really discussed or thought about - after all, a bunch of adu...no, I can't really call a group with you in it a group of adults, so rather, a group of people, standing around going "Infringing civil liberties is bad, MMKAY?" and agreeing with each other is not a discussion, it's an echo chamber - Not that I think you're against just having an echo chamber, since then, everyone's agreeing with you even though you're not even having a serious discussion, just a fucking circle jerk about a civil liberties issue that has been settled - while not on the legal front, but certainly at any point you have the capability of intelligently speaking about it - to the point where discussing it would be pointless anyway.
YES, we get it, sweetie, Taping the police in their public business should be perfectly legal, and even possibly encouraged. In case you haven't noticed, we're agreeing with you, so let's stop banging on that drum now, okay?
Now that we have that covered - What's the point of just saying that much without discussing the case in it's entirety? Yes, his civil liberties were infringed, but without discussing the method or the reason they were infringed upon, all you're stuck saying is "Yep, shouldn't be infringing on them there civil liberties. Yep. Freedom should be free. Yep." So pay attention, little one - Sometimes, you need to discuss things other than already closed discussions where everyone you're speaking to is agreeing, even though they might be big meanie poopyheads and actually say something different to what you're saying, and yes, my fuzzy wuzzy little bumbley bee, they can disagree with you and still be intelligent, polite, nice, and happy people. I'm none of those things, but then again, people who are not nice, polite, happy or intelligent might disagree with you from time to time too.
Are we done now, and can I be confident that you've actually learned a few things here, or at the very least, if you didn't, It's your fault, not mine?
Can we now discuss more than the narrow part of the issue you've decided to wave your flag for, since that more than the section of the issue you chose might actually be important?
I know I've gotten what I wanted, here, which is a few minutes of amusement, and the possibility of further amusement. The possibility of educating you a little is just a side bonus.
P.s - To whom posts the usual "Words words words" emote - screw you too.