According to this interpretation, anything not specifically forbidden for officers would be allowed. I think this is an incorrect application of this legal principle. What if the officer encountered someone juggling bats, something they had never before encountered and not commonly established in law. And there is no clearly established law that prohibits the officer from approaching said individual. See where I'm going???
According to this interpretation, anything not specifically forbidden for officers would be allowed. I think this is an incorrect application of this legal principle. What if the officer encountered someone juggling bats, something they had never before encountered and not commonly established in law. And there is no clearly established law that prohibits the officer from approaching said individual. See where I'm going???
Also, shock therapy is in the eye of the beholder. I wouldn't be shocked to see someone walking down the street open carrying.
Neither would I, but then again we're hanging out talking on a SHOOTING forum.
I don't doubt your interpretation of the Heller ruling at all G2G - in fact I think it's spot on.
And that is truly, truly scary. Sensibilities. Ooooooh it's scary. Ban it for the children.
If sensibilites is a reason to prohibit somthing then states could legislate just about anything out of existence.
Porn is protected by the 1st from being banned due to sensibilities but guns aren't protected by the 2nd for the same reason? The diffence is that guns kill, the antis will say. But then so does porn and when's the last time porn was used to defend and save a life. Yet the right to create porn is protected and the right to carry guns is not because it might offend someone who sees it. What the heck is wrong with that picture.
On the other hand a guy walking around in a park minding his own business and maybe seeking some attention or making a statement or even just plain being a jackass is an unredeemable douche and his actions are so downright irresponsible that whether or not he is exercising a right becomes irrelevant because "just because you can do something doesn't mean you should". And - he is excoriated by the very community that should be rallying to his defense.
People! We're all different and what's good for some isn't for others and vice versa. In a free society you deal with both the good and bad that that dichotomy creates or you don't live in a free society.
As others have said and Voltaire is attributed to have penned, "I disaprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it". The same applies to actions. You may not like what the guy did but he had every right to do it and his actions should be defended based on his right to do it.
Either that or just eliminate the right.
Which is where we're probably headed anyway and no one seems to really care as long as it isn't their ox that's being gored.
I have seen very, veeerrryy little on OSA that leads me to believe anyone here wishes we were a free society. I'm not certain on why people hate freedom so much, but I'm pretty sure it scares them. Well, law enforcement having no idea of the law and being able to detain someone with force indefinitely scares me. Which society do we live in?
"People! We're all different and what's good for some isn't for others and vice versa. In a free society you deal with both the good and bad that that dichotomy creates or you don't live in a free society."
Best thing I've ever read on OSA. Hands down. And this situation certainly doesn't fall into the "bad" paradigm of living in a free society.
Best thing I've ever read on OSA. Hands down. And this situation certainly doesn't fall into the "bad" paradigm of living in a free society.
Hang around for more than 10 minutes and you'll understand this crowd. Everyone here hates freedom, especially when someone uses said freedom to alienate the rights we love so much.
Or law enforcement. Or military. Or fast food workers. However, this person wasn't misusing any right, so again, that's pointless. There is no "within reason" clause to our freedoms, although I've heard that term used on numerous occasions. Demolition Man summed it up nicely, "I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal?"
Except remove the naked part, because that's illegal. Unless in protest, then it's freedom of speech.
