True, however when someone instigates and provokes a fight with someone or some group, the law should acknowledge that the person has some personal blame.
Example: You run into or go near a hangout of black people. You start running your mouth with racist or derogatory comments. When they kick your a**, the police should break it up but that's it. They shouldn't be held for assault for giving what you asked for and started. You walk up to some guy at the bar and start calling him out and talking chit. You're warned to walk away. You don't and get a nose job. It's your fault and no charges should be given to the person you started chit with.
You go to a protest, to protest against. Logic says you are probably gonna instigate some chit. Don't cry foul, man/women-up and except it.
This new mamby-pamby concept that it's the person throwing the punch is always wrong and the one at fault is crap. Running your mouth is were it started and were the blame belongs. Break it up and move along.
So if a black guy runs into a group of white guys and starts calling them "crackers" or "honkys" it's OK for the white guys to clean the black guy's clock. And if the police show up all they need to do is to "break it up", no one should be arrested?
If you like that idea you need to get you legislators to pass a law to that effect. To hell with "keeping the peace", right?
Yeah, screw the Constitution and that damned 1st Amendment when its exercise doesn't personally suit you. By the way, that makes YOU a Nazi too. You're just wearing a shirt that a slightly different shade of brown. Way to go there champ.
Or we could try this . . .just ignore him or laugh at him. He has NO power until he moves YOU to react. He actually won that confrontation where the guy hit him.
Keep in mind that Britain and France (to a lesser degree) CAUSED WWII and Hitler's rise to power. IF they hadn't imposed such draconian financial measures against the people of Germany because of their Kaiser's malfeasance, caused many of them to starve through the 20's and 30's, Hitler would have remained the third improv stand-up comedy act at the Rathskeller on Thursday evenings.
This post was edited by Salt and Red Pepper at January 25, 2017 11:00 AM MST
Nah, the Constitution is only meant to protect from government tyranny and suppression.
Whatever, I've gotten someone to show their inner Nazi sympathizer and that makes all the hyperbole worth it.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at January 25, 2017 11:15 AM MST
The Nazi sympathizer that you refer to is yourself, of course. You're the one calling for authoritarian violence to suppress the view of others that you may disagree with. Pretty scary, really.
"Law enforcement has an obligation to ENFORCE the laws on the books" Except that law enforcement is also given the privilege of " discretion". They are obligated to enforce the law to keep the peace, but are given the ability to use " discretion' on how to apply the law and when to bring charges. More often than not though that discretion is reserved only for how it is going to serve the officer and his quotas.
Law enforcement may occasionally exercise discretion but they don't have a "privilege" to do so. If you think otherwise I can give you the jail cell number of a local law enforcement officer who exercised "discretion" in letting an intoxicated assistant DA "off the hook". Some of the local citizens were listening on their scanners, apparently and made a big stink about it. Now don't ever expect to ever get a "Warning" ticket in my State for a traffic offense. The police will write you up and let the "discretionary" decision to the Courts.
And then there's all that "discretion" in the other direction that was exercised in Ferguson, MO; Baltimore, MD; Cleveland, OH, . . . that list goes on too.
So no, law enforcement has no "discretion".
This post was edited by Salt and Red Pepper at January 25, 2017 1:38 PM MST
my2cents 