JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Enough with the personal attacks guys, please stay on topic.
I'm absolutely the sort of person who will attack a post, and I think that's fair. It's unlikely we know each other well enough here to really make a realistic personal assessment. Assuming I'm a turd is fair though.

On topic, MN looks OK, but Portland seems to be wanting to Portland.
 
I'm absolutely the sort of person who will attack a post, and I think that's fair. It's unlikely we know each other well enough here to really make a realistic personal assessment. Assuming I'm a turd is fair though.

On topic, MN looks OK, but Portland seems to be wanting to Portland.

That's cool. My post wasn't directed at you. At all. :D
 
If she presented an articulable threat to the cops who want to get home to their families? Then the answer is yes.

For your consideration: https://www.wvlt.tv/2021/03/15/grap...e-shootout-that-left-woman-dead-officer-hurt/ (GRAPHIC)

THIS IS WHY YOU COMPLY.

"THIS IS WHY YOU COMPLY"


Hmmmmm, worked out pretty well for the Jews no? I'm absolutely SHOCKED to read anyone on this site say something like that. Mandatory compliance with governments has failed the world so many times, yet in this shooting it's COMPLY COMPLY COMPLY.

I do NOT agree with resisting LE or otherwise, but I also do NOT agree that non compliance with an authority figure should be assumed a possible death sentence. Individual circumstances notwithstanding.
 
What moral basis would there be in the cases you have in mind for non-compliance?

No need for the full Godwin

I wouldn't be so presumptuous to think I know the moral basis, as it's so subjective. What I do know is not "complying" shouldn't be a death sentence unless lives are in jeopardy. Being told that "THIS IS WHY YOU COMPLY" is like being told "BECAUSE I SAID SO" and some folks swing back and forth wildly from bleating to violent protest. So where is the line drawn?
 
Read up. I'm confused how you don't see it. Been suggested quite a few times here that the kid would be alive if he complied.
I agree. Do you disagree with that assertion?

To me, a phrase like "this is why we comply" isn't saying there is no circumstance where non-compliance is justified. It IS, to me, saying that in most cases in America today, fighting law enforcement at the time of initial contact rather than with a lawyer later is intrinsically risky, and a reasonable person in those circumstances will seek to minimize risk.

Non compliance does the following:
  1. Exposes the subject to risk of accidental injury
  2. Exposes the subject to risk of actual criminal charges
  3. Presents a situation that is easy for LEOs to misunderstand as life threatening.
  4. ....
This is why we comply in America, in circumstances like these.
 
I agree. Do you disagree with that assertion?

To me, a phrase like "this is why we comply" isn't saying there is no circumstance where non-compliance is justified. It IS, to me, saying that in most cases in America today, fighting law enforcement at the time of initial contact rather than with a lawyer later is intrinsically risky, and a reasonable person in those circumstances will seek to minimize risk.

Non compliance does the following:
  1. Exposes the subject to risk of accidental injury
  2. Exposes the subject to risk of actual criminal charges
  3. Presents a situation that is easy for LEOs to misunderstand as life threatening.
  4. ....
This is why we comply in America, in circumstances like these.

Is that why we comply with unconstitutional laws that attack our right to defend ourselves? See what I mean? I never said don't comply, I said complying blindly because .gov says so has been detrimental to entire populations throughout world history. Let alone our 2A rights being constantly trampled and the ones doing the trampling expecting unquestioned COMPLIANCE.



My point? Non-compliance shouldn't be assumed a possible death sentence. I actually already said this.
 
Non-compliance shouldn't be assumed a possible death sentence.
I don't think anyone asserted this. Non-compliance MAY result in death, but it's not a sentence. It's an unfortunate but predictably possible outcome.

Every law has an unwritten subtext that reads "or we will kill you." That's why having the fewest and best laws is so important, and few people really understand this. If a person resists persistently and effectively enough, either they will be killed or a choice has to be made to not enforce that law in this case. That's how it is. Most people either won't or can't resist well enough to make it come to this, but this is how it works.

I comply with all sorts of unconstitutional laws, and I support any legal means to make those laws go away. The efficacy of those efforts is mixed at best but this is the right way to get it done, and exposes me to something approximating minimum risk at the same time. I would encourage everyone to consider a similar policy.
 
"THIS IS WHY YOU COMPLY"


Hmmmmm, worked out pretty well for the Jews no? I'm absolutely SHOCKED to read anyone on this site say something like that. Mandatory compliance with governments has failed the world so many times, yet in this shooting it's COMPLY COMPLY COMPLY.

I do NOT agree with resisting LE or otherwise, but I also do NOT agree that non compliance with an authority figure should be assumed a possible death sentence. Individual circumstances notwithstanding.
I'll respond to your easily-defeatable straw man fallacy regarding "jews" in detail later on when I have time to adequately address the topic.

In the mean time, here's another video. And a simple binary: Given police are authorized by law to issue lawful commands to citizens for their safety, was the citizen in the video in the right or in the wrong for refusing to comply with the officer's lawful orders?

(GRAPHIC)


 
I'll respond to your easily-defeatable straw man fallacy regarding "jews" in detail later on when I have time to adequately address the topic.

In the mean time, here's another video. And a simple binary: Given police are authorized by law to issue lawful commands to citizens for their safety, was the citizen in the video in the right or in the wrong for refusing to comply with the officer's lawful orders?

(GRAPHIC)



There is no "straw man" fallacy in my post. You don't need to waste your time addressing it. If it was a poor example, then it was a poor example. My bad, it was the first example that popped in my head while multitasking at work of forced compliance.
 
Man, seems to be a whole bunch of virtue signal crop dusting in this thread, sheesh!

Here's the deal, get stopped by the cops, COMPLY, it's super easy and will likely keep you from getting chooted!
Once the "business" is completed, if you feel you were wronged or violated in any way, there are mechinisisms available to offer redress!
As far as Non-Compliance, is that the hill you want to die on?
With things as tense as they are in the larger urban areas, is it really worth it to square off with a pissed off, over worked, under appreciated, un supported cop, knowing that he/she might just say fukit and do you deadly? Seems a bunch of iginants have decided their rights and feelings trump the rule of law, and are getting dead because of it!
 
I'll respond to your easily-defeatable straw man fallacy regarding "jews" in detail later on when I have time to adequately address the topic.

In the mean time, here's another video. And a simple binary: Given police are authorized by law to issue lawful commands to citizens for their safety, was the citizen in the video in the right or in the wrong for refusing to comply with the officer's lawful orders?

(GRAPHIC)


This video does a poor job showing the reason for the attempted detainment. If it showed the guy committing a crime prior to him making this interaction I'd 100% agree with you. Otherwise it just shows a cop yelling at a guy to comply for ? reasons, then getting shot. So what was the lawful reason he attempted the stop? Because he could?
 
Yeah. I never said don't comply. I was trying to go bigger picture but I must have failed. No worries, I'll let it go.
 
Think I've seen that one before. It's yet another stand alone situation. The complexity of any of these OIS s is what makes "police reform " rhetoric sound like a political tag line to me.

It's never going to be a color by numbers solution folks.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top