The Fevered Egos of Nashville Cops

[landotter]

Fair warning: rant

I don't think I've ever had an interaction with a metro Nashville cop
that didn't
leave me disgusted. Chicago, Seattle and other cities have never been a
problem.

This time was absolutely appalling. I was out training on the bicycle
and took a short cut through Centennial park. Over by the old croquet
courts they were setting up for a big band concert. Barriers blocked
outgoing traffic but allowed incoming. So I ride through, slowly at
6mph as
there are peds, and I try to be a polite fellow to make up for all the
jerks on bikes out in Belle Meade. Come to a road block with a small
opening and three cops. "You can't ride here, boy!" Me: "Sorry, I
assumed you were just blocking motorized traffic." I rode through the
road block onto "kosher" road and
towards the exit. I ride a few hundred meters and almost exit the park
then...Cop cuts my off on an ATV and says, you need to come
back when you're told to. I never heard anything. Ride back and they
threaten to throw me in jail for not obeying a police officer, and mock
me, "how long you been riding in the street, boy?" Me:"About 25 years."
Then: "You know you need to follow the same rules as cars?" Duh. Of
course, but cyclists have additional rights to motorists that apply to
parks and cycle paths. With his logic, we should be ticketing children
for riding on sidewalks. He threatens to haul me to jail several times,
and his buddy with mirrored glasses calls a musician "arrogant" for
wanting to be let through to drop off his gear. Finally got a $50
ticket for "disobeying an officer".

It's not the first time a cop in this city has just randomly
brain****ed me either. I've been pulled over a couple times and the cop
got mad that I *wasn't* drunk, so made me do all sorts of bizarre
things while I begged to just blow so I could get home.

Forgot to mention: several cars pulled in after me as they thought the
same thing, that just one lane was blocked. The cops yelled at three of
them to "FREEZE", collected licenses, strutted about, and wrote
gargantuan tickets.

What exactly was accomplished? Beats me

Another thought: the Nashville gay pride celebration was breaking down
for the day in the same park, were these jerks just channeling
homophobic anger at everybody?? I'm not gay, but have no problem if
folks assume that I am, what with my jaunty cycling caps and all--it
sort of leads me to a bad suspicion.

Now I've spent half a day in jail here for a misidentification, and
I'll tell ya, it's frightening. Guy next to me in the crowded cell was
going into convulsions from heroin withdrawal, and after I yelled for
medical attention, they handcuffed him to a railing and pointed and
laughed as he suffered. Don't know if he died or not, but it's likely.

Ugh, gawd bless 'em cauz I can't .

[limeylew@gmail.com]

Sounds like you need to move to somewhere like Benbrook, TX., where the
sun shines most days and the riding is great.

Lewis.

*****


landotter wrote:
> Fair warning: rant
>
> I don't think I've ever had an interaction with a metro Nashville cop
> that didn't
> leave me disgusted. Chicago, Seattle and other cities have never been a
> problem.
>
> This time was absolutely appalling. I was out training on the bicycle
> and took a short cut through Centennial park. Over by the old croquet
> courts they were setting up for a big band concert. Barriers blocked
> outgoing traffic but allowed incoming. So I ride through, slowly at
> 6mph as
> there are peds, and I try to be a polite fellow to make up for all the
> jerks on bikes out in Belle Meade. Come to a road block with a small
> opening and three cops. "You can't ride here, boy!" Me: "Sorry, I
> assumed you were just blocking motorized traffic." I rode through the
> road block onto "kosher" road and
> towards the exit. I ride a few hundred meters and almost exit the park
> then...Cop cuts my off on an ATV and says, you need to come
> back when you're told to. I never heard anything. Ride back and they
> threaten to throw me in jail for not obeying a police officer, and mock
> me, "how long you been riding in the street, boy?" Me:"About 25 years."
> Then: "You know you need to follow the same rules as cars?" Duh. Of
> course, but cyclists have additional rights to motorists that apply to
> parks and cycle paths. With his logic, we should be ticketing children
> for riding on sidewalks. He threatens to haul me to jail several times,
> and his buddy with mirrored glasses calls a musician "arrogant" for
> wanting to be let through to drop off his gear. Finally got a $50
> ticket for "disobeying an officer".
>
> It's not the first time a cop in this city has just randomly
> brain****ed me either. I've been pulled over a couple times and the cop
> got mad that I *wasn't* drunk, so made me do all sorts of bizarre
> things while I begged to just blow so I could get home.
>
> Forgot to mention: several cars pulled in after me as they thought the
> same thing, that just one lane was blocked. The cops yelled at three of
> them to "FREEZE", collected licenses, strutted about, and wrote
> gargantuan tickets.
>
> What exactly was accomplished? Beats me
>
> Another thought: the Nashville gay pride celebration was breaking down
> for the day in the same park, were these jerks just channeling
> homophobic anger at everybody?? I'm not gay, but have no problem if
> folks assume that I am, what with my jaunty cycling caps and all--it
> sort of leads me to a bad suspicion.
>
> Now I've spent half a day in jail here for a misidentification, and
> I'll tell ya, it's frightening. Guy next to me in the crowded cell was
> going into convulsions from heroin withdrawal, and after I yelled for
> medical attention, they handcuffed him to a railing and pointed and
> laughed as he suffered. Don't know if he died or not, but it's likely.
>
> Ugh, gawd bless 'em cauz I can't .

[rwwff@yahoo.com]

landotter wrote:
> Fair warning: rant

Sounds to me like you're asking for the extra attention. You always
have to keep in mind, that there is the letter of the law, and there is
human nature. When they confict, human nature will always carry the
day.

> It's not the first time a cop in this city has just randomly
> brain****ed me either. I've been pulled over a couple times and the cop
> got mad that I *wasn't* drunk, so made me do all sorts of bizarre
> things while I begged to just blow so I could get home.

Begging a cop to leave is like dangling a string in front of a cat.
He's heard it a thousand times, and nine hundred and ninety five of
those times he's gone on to find drugs or stolen property on the person
that just "has to get to class right now" or whatever.

Just do as you're asked. Keep your mouth shut other than to say "yes
sir" and "no sir" (or maam as appropriate). If he wants to know why
you did something or want to do something, he'll ask.

> Forgot to mention: several cars pulled in after me as they thought the
> same thing, that just one lane was blocked. The cops yelled at three of
> them to "FREEZE", collected licenses, strutted about, and wrote
> gargantuan tickets.
>
> What exactly was accomplished? Beats me

Ummm, traffic enforcement?

[landotter]

wrote:
> landotter wrote:
> > Fair warning: rant
>
> Sounds to me like you're asking for the extra attention. You always
> have to keep in mind, that there is the letter of the law, and there is
> human nature. When they confict, human nature will always carry the
> day.
What the **** about riding a bike in the park is asking for extra
attention, asshole?


The letter of the law is that the barriers in parks are to keep
motorized traffic out, and that these cops were just out to be
assholes.
>
> > It's not the first time a cop in this city has just randomly
> > brain****ed me either. I've been pulled over a couple times and the cop
> > got mad that I *wasn't* drunk, so made me do all sorts of bizarre
> > things while I begged to just blow so I could get home.
>
> Begging a cop to leave is like dangling a string in front of a cat.
> He's heard it a thousand times, and nine hundred and ninety five of
> those times he's gone on to find drugs or stolen property on the person
> that just "has to get to class right now" or whatever.

And asking somebody who's dead sober in a suit on their way to a
symphony performance, who was going 3mph over the speed limit on a ramp
to hop on one leg, now hop on the other while hurling insults at
them--is something that I should just accept?

>
> Just do as you're asked. Keep your mouth shut other than to say "yes
> sir" and "no sir" (or maam as appropriate). If he wants to know why
> you did something or want to do something, he'll ask.

Nice brown shirt, asshole.

>
> > Forgot to mention: several cars pulled in after me as they thought the
> > same thing, that just one lane was blocked. The cops yelled at three of
> > them to "FREEZE", collected licenses, strutted about, and wrote
> > gargantuan tickets.
> >
> > What exactly was accomplished? Beats me
>
> Ummm, traffic enforcement?

There was a road, they drove on it, the cops wrote them tickets for an
imaginary barrier that wasn't there.

Now go back in that dark room and give Babs Bush another poke, she's
excited to see that mighty corndog of yours.

[Scoot]

landotter wrote:
> Fair warning: rant

You know what they say, the only good cop is a cop killed when a crack
whore bites off his penis during forced fellatio and he bleeds to
death...

[Werehatrack]

On 3 Jun 2006 22:45:15 -0700, "landotter" > wrote:

>Fair warning: rant

Call the mayor's office. Call the newspapers. All of them. Don't
let them hide this under a rock.

Oh, and I'll bet that if you look around, you can get an attorney, ask
for a reset of the court date for the ticket, and watch as the cop
fails to show up. With a lawyer present, this almost always results
in the ticket being dismissed because the prosecution wasn't ready at
trial.

Personally, I'd rather pay a landshark twice as much as the fine in
order to keep the city from getting a penny in fines that they didn't
earn.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

[Werehatrack]

Oh, and call the Internal Arrairs office at the cop shop, and file a
formal complaint.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

[Sorni]

landotter wrote:
> wrote:
>> landotter wrote:
>>> Fair warning: rant
>>
>> Sounds to me like you're asking for the extra attention. You always
>> have to keep in mind, that there is the letter of the law, and there
>> is human nature. When they confict, human nature will always carry
>> the day.
> What the **** about riding a bike in the park is asking for extra
> attention, asshole?
>
>
> The letter of the law is that the barriers in parks are to keep
> motorized traffic out, and that these cops were just out to be
> assholes.
>>
>>> It's not the first time a cop in this city has just randomly
>>> brain****ed me either. I've been pulled over a couple times and the
>>> cop got mad that I *wasn't* drunk, so made me do all sorts of
>>> bizarre things while I begged to just blow so I could get home.
>>
>> Begging a cop to leave is like dangling a string in front of a cat.
>> He's heard it a thousand times, and nine hundred and ninety five of
>> those times he's gone on to find drugs or stolen property on the
>> person that just "has to get to class right now" or whatever.
>
> And asking somebody who's dead sober in a suit on their way to a
> symphony performance, who was going 3mph over the speed limit on a
> ramp to hop on one leg, now hop on the other while hurling insults at
> them--is something that I should just accept?
>
>>
>> Just do as you're asked. Keep your mouth shut other than to say "yes
>> sir" and "no sir" (or maam as appropriate). If he wants to know
>> why you did something or want to do something, he'll ask.
>
> Nice brown shirt, asshole.
>
>>
>>> Forgot to mention: several cars pulled in after me as they thought
>>> the same thing, that just one lane was blocked. The cops yelled at
>>> three of them to "FREEZE", collected licenses, strutted about, and
>>> wrote gargantuan tickets.
>>>
>>> What exactly was accomplished? Beats me
>>
>> Ummm, traffic enforcement?
>
> There was a road, they drove on it, the cops wrote them tickets for an
> imaginary barrier that wasn't there.
>
> Now go back in that dark room and give Babs Bush another poke, she's
> excited to see that mighty corndog of yours.

Can't imagine why anyone would dislike you LOL LOL LOL

[Frank Drackman]

> wrote in message >
> Begging a cop to leave is like dangling a string in front of a cat.
> He's heard it a thousand times, and nine hundred and ninety five of
> those times he's gone on to find drugs or stolen property on the person
> that just "has to get to class right now" or whatever.
>
>
Are you trying to sat that 95 percent of all traffic stops result in illegal
drugs or stolen property being found?

[landotter]

Werehatrack wrote:
> On 3 Jun 2006 22:45:15 -0700, "landotter" > wrote:
>
> >Fair warning: rant
>
> Call the mayor's office. Call the newspapers. All of them. Don't
> let them hide this under a rock.

I'll probably file a complaint, but as far as hiring an attorney--the
guy had two good ole' boys with him, so my story will matter very very
little. Police department here is incredibly corrupt.
>
> Oh, and I'll bet that if you look around, you can get an attorney, ask
> for a reset of the court date for the ticket, and watch as the cop
> fails to show up. With a lawyer present, this almost always results
> in the ticket being dismissed because the prosecution wasn't ready at
> trial.
>
> Personally, I'd rather pay a landshark twice as much as the fine in
> order to keep the city from getting a penny in fines that they didn't


I don't have the funds for an attorney now, though as I said my chances
are slim, but the thought is wonderful.

I *did* go to court here a few years ago to testify against one of the
officers that harrassed me during an unwarranted traffic stop. He got
let go.

[Gooserider]

"Sorni" > wrote in message
...
> landotter wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> landotter wrote:
>>>> Fair warning: rant
>>>
>>> Sounds to me like you're asking for the extra attention. You always
>>> have to keep in mind, that there is the letter of the law, and there
>>> is human nature. When they confict, human nature will always carry
>>> the day.
>> What the **** about riding a bike in the park is asking for extra
>> attention, asshole?
>>
>>
>> The letter of the law is that the barriers in parks are to keep
>> motorized traffic out, and that these cops were just out to be
>> assholes.
>>>
>>>> It's not the first time a cop in this city has just randomly
>>>> brain****ed me either. I've been pulled over a couple times and the
>>>> cop got mad that I *wasn't* drunk, so made me do all sorts of
>>>> bizarre things while I begged to just blow so I could get home.
>>>
>>> Begging a cop to leave is like dangling a string in front of a cat.
>>> He's heard it a thousand times, and nine hundred and ninety five of
>>> those times he's gone on to find drugs or stolen property on the
>>> person that just "has to get to class right now" or whatever.
>>
>> And asking somebody who's dead sober in a suit on their way to a
>> symphony performance, who was going 3mph over the speed limit on a
>> ramp to hop on one leg, now hop on the other while hurling insults at
>> them--is something that I should just accept?
>>
>>>
>>> Just do as you're asked. Keep your mouth shut other than to say "yes
>>> sir" and "no sir" (or maam as appropriate). If he wants to know
>>> why you did something or want to do something, he'll ask.
>>
>> Nice brown shirt, asshole.
>>
>>>
>>>> Forgot to mention: several cars pulled in after me as they thought
>>>> the same thing, that just one lane was blocked. The cops yelled at
>>>> three of them to "FREEZE", collected licenses, strutted about, and
>>>> wrote gargantuan tickets.
>>>>
>>>> What exactly was accomplished? Beats me
>>>
>>> Ummm, traffic enforcement?
>>
>> There was a road, they drove on it, the cops wrote them tickets for an
>> imaginary barrier that wasn't there.
>>
>> Now go back in that dark room and give Babs Bush another poke, she's
>> excited to see that mighty corndog of yours.
>
> Can't imagine why anyone would dislike you LOL LOL LOL
Yeah, quite a pleasant individual.

[Sorni]

Frank Drackman wrote:
> > wrote in message >
>> Begging a cop to leave is like dangling a string in front of a cat.
>> He's heard it a thousand times, and nine hundred and ninety five of
>> those times he's gone on to find drugs or stolen property on the
>> person that just "has to get to class right now" or whatever.


> Are you trying to sat that 95 percent of all traffic stops result in
> illegal drugs or stolen property being found?


Read his paragraph again.

Light bulb go off?

[chuck]

On 2006-06-04, Werehatrack > wrote:
> On 3 Jun 2006 22:45:15 -0700, "landotter" > wrote:
>
>>Fair warning: rant
>
> Call the mayor's office. Call the newspapers. All of them. Don't
> let them hide this under a rock.
>
> Oh, and I'll bet that if you look around, you can get an attorney, ask
> for a reset of the court date for the ticket, and watch as the cop
> fails to show up. With a lawyer present, this almost always results
> in the ticket being dismissed because the prosecution wasn't ready at
> trial.
>
> Personally, I'd rather pay a landshark twice as much as the fine in
> order to keep the city from getting a penny in fines that they didn't
> earn.

Ever since the Patriot Act, the cops around here are searching just
about every car they pull over that has a black/under 30 driver. I love
it when they call asking for donations for the police union fund. I
explain, "Since you been trampling our rights after the Patriot Act, all
donations I used to contribute now go to the ACLU."

[landotter]

Gooserider wrote:
> "Sorni" > wrote in message
> ...
> > landotter wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>> landotter wrote:
> >>>> Fair warning: rant
> >>>
> >>> Sounds to me like you're asking for the extra attention. You always
> >>> have to keep in mind, that there is the letter of the law, and there
> >>> is human nature. When they confict, human nature will always carry
> >>> the day.
> >> What the **** about riding a bike in the park is asking for extra
> >> attention, asshole?
> >>
> >>
> >> The letter of the law is that the barriers in parks are to keep
> >> motorized traffic out, and that these cops were just out to be
> >> assholes.
> >>>
> >>>> It's not the first time a cop in this city has just randomly
> >>>> brain****ed me either. I've been pulled over a couple times and the
> >>>> cop got mad that I *wasn't* drunk, so made me do all sorts of
> >>>> bizarre things while I begged to just blow so I could get home.
> >>>
> >>> Begging a cop to leave is like dangling a string in front of a cat.
> >>> He's heard it a thousand times, and nine hundred and ninety five of
> >>> those times he's gone on to find drugs or stolen property on the
> >>> person that just "has to get to class right now" or whatever.
> >>
> >> And asking somebody who's dead sober in a suit on their way to a
> >> symphony performance, who was going 3mph over the speed limit on a
> >> ramp to hop on one leg, now hop on the other while hurling insults at
> >> them--is something that I should just accept?
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Just do as you're asked. Keep your mouth shut other than to say "yes
> >>> sir" and "no sir" (or maam as appropriate). If he wants to know
> >>> why you did something or want to do something, he'll ask.
> >>
> >> Nice brown shirt, asshole.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> Forgot to mention: several cars pulled in after me as they thought
> >>>> the same thing, that just one lane was blocked. The cops yelled at
> >>>> three of them to "FREEZE", collected licenses, strutted about, and
> >>>> wrote gargantuan tickets.
> >>>>
> >>>> What exactly was accomplished? Beats me
> >>>
> >>> Ummm, traffic enforcement?
> >>
> >> There was a road, they drove on it, the cops wrote them tickets for an
> >> imaginary barrier that wasn't there.
> >>
> >> Now go back in that dark room and give Babs Bush another poke, she's
> >> excited to see that mighty corndog of yours.
> >
> > Can't imagine why anyone would dislike you LOL LOL LOL
> Yeah, quite a pleasant individual.

Sorni's the biggest dickhead on this group, that's for sure. I was
reacting to an individual commenting without knowing jack **** about
the corruption and hostility of my city's police officers. It's not New
Orleans, but it's damn close.

Do I use my big fat mouth with the cops? Of course not, but when you've
been humiliated in public by some sadistic guy with a gun, you tend to
not like people who have some kind of apparent clairvoyance and assume
that you're at fault.

[Sorni]

landotter wrote:
> Gooserider wrote:
>> "Sorni" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> landotter wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> landotter wrote:
>>>>>> Fair warning: rant
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds to me like you're asking for the extra attention. You
>>>>> always have to keep in mind, that there is the letter of the law,
>>>>> and there is human nature. When they confict, human nature will
>>>>> always carry the day.

>>>> What the **** about riding a bike in the park is asking for extra
>>>> attention, asshole?
>>>>
>>>> The letter of the law is that the barriers in parks are to keep
>>>> motorized traffic out, and that these cops were just out to be
>>>> assholes.

>>>>>> It's not the first time a cop in this city has just randomly
>>>>>> brain****ed me either. I've been pulled over a couple times and
>>>>>> the cop got mad that I *wasn't* drunk, so made me do all sorts of
>>>>>> bizarre things while I begged to just blow so I could get home.
>>>>>
>>>>> Begging a cop to leave is like dangling a string in front of a
>>>>> cat. He's heard it a thousand times, and nine hundred and ninety
>>>>> five of those times he's gone on to find drugs or stolen property
>>>>> on the person that just "has to get to class right now" or
>>>>> whatever.
>>>>
>>>> And asking somebody who's dead sober in a suit on their way to a
>>>> symphony performance, who was going 3mph over the speed limit on a
>>>> ramp to hop on one leg, now hop on the other while hurling insults
>>>> at them--is something that I should just accept?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just do as you're asked. Keep your mouth shut other than to say
>>>>> "yes sir" and "no sir" (or maam as appropriate). If he wants
>>>>> to know why you did something or want to do something, he'll ask.
>>>>
>>>> Nice brown shirt, asshole.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Forgot to mention: several cars pulled in after me as they
>>>>>> thought the same thing, that just one lane was blocked. The cops
>>>>>> yelled at three of them to "FREEZE", collected licenses,
>>>>>> strutted about, and wrote gargantuan tickets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What exactly was accomplished? Beats me
>>>>>
>>>>> Ummm, traffic enforcement?
>>>>
>>>> There was a road, they drove on it, the cops wrote them tickets
>>>> for an imaginary barrier that wasn't there.
>>>>
>>>> Now go back in that dark room and give Babs Bush another poke,
>>>> she's excited to see that mighty corndog of yours.

>>> Can't imagine why anyone would dislike you LOL LOL LOL

>> Yeah, quite a pleasant individual.

> Sorni's the biggest dickhead on this group, that's for sure. I was
> reacting to an individual commenting without knowing jack **** about
> the corruption and hostility of my city's police officers. It's not
> New Orleans, but it's damn close.
>
> Do I use my big fat mouth with the cops? Of course not, but when
> you've been humiliated in public by some sadistic guy with a gun, you
> tend to not like people who have some kind of apparent clairvoyance
> and assume that you're at fault.

The fact is rwwff wasn't abusive or even rude in his reply to your post.
You then proceeded to call him an asshole (along with other crude remarks)
over and over. You don't think that's at least possibly a CLUE as to your
multiple run-ins with law enforcement? Or is it always "them", "their
fault", etc.?

Sure /sounds/ like you've got "attitude issues" at the very least.

Take it FWIW...

[Gooserider]

"landotter" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Gooserider wrote:
>> "Sorni" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > landotter wrote:
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> landotter wrote:
>> >>>> Fair warning: rant
>> >>>
>> >>> Sounds to me like you're asking for the extra attention. You always
>> >>> have to keep in mind, that there is the letter of the law, and there
>> >>> is human nature. When they confict, human nature will always carry
>> >>> the day.
>> >> What the **** about riding a bike in the park is asking for extra
>> >> attention, asshole?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The letter of the law is that the barriers in parks are to keep
>> >> motorized traffic out, and that these cops were just out to be
>> >> assholes.
>> >>>
>> >>>> It's not the first time a cop in this city has just randomly
>> >>>> brain****ed me either. I've been pulled over a couple times and the
>> >>>> cop got mad that I *wasn't* drunk, so made me do all sorts of
>> >>>> bizarre things while I begged to just blow so I could get home.
>> >>>
>> >>> Begging a cop to leave is like dangling a string in front of a cat.
>> >>> He's heard it a thousand times, and nine hundred and ninety five of
>> >>> those times he's gone on to find drugs or stolen property on the
>> >>> person that just "has to get to class right now" or whatever.
>> >>
>> >> And asking somebody who's dead sober in a suit on their way to a
>> >> symphony performance, who was going 3mph over the speed limit on a
>> >> ramp to hop on one leg, now hop on the other while hurling insults at
>> >> them--is something that I should just accept?
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Just do as you're asked. Keep your mouth shut other than to say "yes
>> >>> sir" and "no sir" (or maam as appropriate). If he wants to know
>> >>> why you did something or want to do something, he'll ask.
>> >>
>> >> Nice brown shirt, asshole.
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>> Forgot to mention: several cars pulled in after me as they thought
>> >>>> the same thing, that just one lane was blocked. The cops yelled at
>> >>>> three of them to "FREEZE", collected licenses, strutted about, and
>> >>>> wrote gargantuan tickets.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> What exactly was accomplished? Beats me
>> >>>
>> >>> Ummm, traffic enforcement?
>> >>
>> >> There was a road, they drove on it, the cops wrote them tickets for an
>> >> imaginary barrier that wasn't there.
>> >>
>> >> Now go back in that dark room and give Babs Bush another poke, she's
>> >> excited to see that mighty corndog of yours.
>> >
>> > Can't imagine why anyone would dislike you LOL LOL LOL
>> Yeah, quite a pleasant individual.
>
> Sorni's the biggest dickhead on this group, that's for sure. I was
> reacting to an individual commenting without knowing jack **** about
> the corruption and hostility of my city's police officers. It's not New
> Orleans, but it's damn close.
>
> Do I use my big fat mouth with the cops? Of course not, but when you've
> been humiliated in public by some sadistic guy with a gun, you tend to
> not like people who have some kind of apparent clairvoyance and assume
> that you're at fault.

I was referring to you. You attacked another poster with inappropriate
profanity and name calling. That's uncalled for, and casts doubt upon your
alleged calmness in the face of the police.

[Sorni]

chuck wrote:
>
> Ever since the Patriot Act, the cops around here are searching just
> about every car they pull over that has a black/under 30 driver. I
> love it when they call asking for donations for the police union
> fund. I explain, "Since you been trampling our rights after the
> Patriot Act, all donations I used to contribute now go to the ACLU."

Supporting defenders of pedophiles makes you feel...good?

From http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp :

"...the ACLU lately has stained the dark side of its reputation through its
actions in two cases involving the treatment of vulnerable, young Americans.
The ACLU is defending those who abuse children while attacking those who
give them moral guidance. This contrast reveals the priorities of today's
ACLU.
The Manhattan-based public-interest law firm is defending the North American
Man-Boy Love Association in a $200 million civil lawsuit filed by Mr. and
Mrs. Robert Curley. The Curleys claim that Charles Jaynes was driven by the
literature and website of NAMBLA, an outfit that advocates sex between grown
men and little boys, reportedly as young as age 8."

It goes ON from there.

(Second Google hit on "ACLU man boy love" search. First was worse but more
partisan.)

You must be very proud...

[landotter]

Gooserider wrote:
> "landotter" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Gooserider wrote:
> >> "Sorni" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > landotter wrote:
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>> landotter wrote:
> >> >>>> Fair warning: rant
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Sounds to me like you're asking for the extra attention. You always
> >> >>> have to keep in mind, that there is the letter of the law, and there
> >> >>> is human nature. When they confict, human nature will always carry
> >> >>> the day.
> >> >> What the **** about riding a bike in the park is asking for extra
> >> >> attention, asshole?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The letter of the law is that the barriers in parks are to keep
> >> >> motorized traffic out, and that these cops were just out to be
> >> >> assholes.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> It's not the first time a cop in this city has just randomly
> >> >>>> brain****ed me either. I've been pulled over a couple times and the
> >> >>>> cop got mad that I *wasn't* drunk, so made me do all sorts of
> >> >>>> bizarre things while I begged to just blow so I could get home.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Begging a cop to leave is like dangling a string in front of a cat.
> >> >>> He's heard it a thousand times, and nine hundred and ninety five of
> >> >>> those times he's gone on to find drugs or stolen property on the
> >> >>> person that just "has to get to class right now" or whatever.
> >> >>
> >> >> And asking somebody who's dead sober in a suit on their way to a
> >> >> symphony performance, who was going 3mph over the speed limit on a
> >> >> ramp to hop on one leg, now hop on the other while hurling insults at
> >> >> them--is something that I should just accept?
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Just do as you're asked. Keep your mouth shut other than to say "yes
> >> >>> sir" and "no sir" (or maam as appropriate). If he wants to know
> >> >>> why you did something or want to do something, he'll ask.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nice brown shirt, asshole.
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Forgot to mention: several cars pulled in after me as they thought
> >> >>>> the same thing, that just one lane was blocked. The cops yelled at
> >> >>>> three of them to "FREEZE", collected licenses, strutted about, and
> >> >>>> wrote gargantuan tickets.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> What exactly was accomplished? Beats me
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Ummm, traffic enforcement?
> >> >>
> >> >> There was a road, they drove on it, the cops wrote them tickets for an
> >> >> imaginary barrier that wasn't there.
> >> >>
> >> >> Now go back in that dark room and give Babs Bush another poke, she's
> >> >> excited to see that mighty corndog of yours.
> >> >
> >> > Can't imagine why anyone would dislike you LOL LOL LOL
> >> Yeah, quite a pleasant individual.
> >
> > Sorni's the biggest dickhead on this group, that's for sure. I was
> > reacting to an individual commenting without knowing jack **** about
> > the corruption and hostility of my city's police officers. It's not New
> > Orleans, but it's damn close.
> >
> > Do I use my big fat mouth with the cops? Of course not, but when you've
> > been humiliated in public by some sadistic guy with a gun, you tend to
> > not like people who have some kind of apparent clairvoyance and assume
> > that you're at fault.
>
> I was referring to you. You attacked another poster with inappropriate
> profanity and name calling. That's uncalled for, and casts doubt upon your
> alleged calmness in the face of the police.

The other poster inferred that I was the cause of the incident. That's
like saying a rape victim is at fault. My anger is fully justified. I
got harrassed by three redneck cops showing off in front of each other
and somebody has the audacity to suggest that I was asking for it?
That's ****ing insane.

[landotter]

Sorni wrote:
> landotter wrote:
> > Gooserider wrote:
> >> "Sorni" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> landotter wrote:
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> landotter wrote:
> >>>>>> Fair warning: rant
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sounds to me like you're asking for the extra attention. You
> >>>>> always have to keep in mind, that there is the letter of the law,
> >>>>> and there is human nature. When they confict, human nature will
> >>>>> always carry the day.
>
> >>>> What the **** about riding a bike in the park is asking for extra
> >>>> attention, asshole?
> >>>>
> >>>> The letter of the law is that the barriers in parks are to keep
> >>>> motorized traffic out, and that these cops were just out to be
> >>>> assholes.
>
> >>>>>> It's not the first time a cop in this city has just randomly
> >>>>>> brain****ed me either. I've been pulled over a couple times and
> >>>>>> the cop got mad that I *wasn't* drunk, so made me do all sorts of
> >>>>>> bizarre things while I begged to just blow so I could get home.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Begging a cop to leave is like dangling a string in front of a
> >>>>> cat. He's heard it a thousand times, and nine hundred and ninety
> >>>>> five of those times he's gone on to find drugs or stolen property
> >>>>> on the person that just "has to get to class right now" or
> >>>>> whatever.
> >>>>
> >>>> And asking somebody who's dead sober in a suit on their way to a
> >>>> symphony performance, who was going 3mph over the speed limit on a
> >>>> ramp to hop on one leg, now hop on the other while hurling insults
> >>>> at them--is something that I should just accept?
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just do as you're asked. Keep your mouth shut other than to say
> >>>>> "yes sir" and "no sir" (or maam as appropriate). If he wants
> >>>>> to know why you did something or want to do something, he'll ask.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nice brown shirt, asshole.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Forgot to mention: several cars pulled in after me as they
> >>>>>> thought the same thing, that just one lane was blocked. The cops
> >>>>>> yelled at three of them to "FREEZE", collected licenses,
> >>>>>> strutted about, and wrote gargantuan tickets.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What exactly was accomplished? Beats me
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ummm, traffic enforcement?
> >>>>
> >>>> There was a road, they drove on it, the cops wrote them tickets
> >>>> for an imaginary barrier that wasn't there.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now go back in that dark room and give Babs Bush another poke,
> >>>> she's excited to see that mighty corndog of yours.
>
> >>> Can't imagine why anyone would dislike you LOL LOL LOL
>
> >> Yeah, quite a pleasant individual.
>
> > Sorni's the biggest dickhead on this group, that's for sure. I was
> > reacting to an individual commenting without knowing jack **** about
> > the corruption and hostility of my city's police officers. It's not
> > New Orleans, but it's damn close.
> >
> > Do I use my big fat mouth with the cops? Of course not, but when
> > you've been humiliated in public by some sadistic guy with a gun, you
> > tend to not like people who have some kind of apparent clairvoyance
> > and assume that you're at fault.
>
> The fact is rwwff wasn't abusive or even rude in his reply to your post.
> You then proceeded to call him an asshole (along with other crude remarks)
> over and over. You don't think that's at least possibly a CLUE as to your
> multiple run-ins with law enforcement? Or is it always "them", "their
> fault", etc.?

As always, Sorni, you're an ass. You don't know jack **** about the
local boys in blue. I've never done a thing to provoke them. It's
always been completely random. This one looks to be a hate crime as I
was coming from the scene of a gay pride march. "Lets mess wit the
fagit on the bike" was the attitude of the day.

>
> Sure /sounds/ like you've got "attitude issues" at the very least.


**** off, Sorni--you'd cop an attitude if you went through the same
experience. And as somebody that routinely posts mean spirted things on
the group, you're one to talk.

I've been tackled by a cop and thrown around in Chicago for suspected
murder and forced to do a line up on the street. At least then the cops
apologized for mistaken identity, and showed genuine humility.

[landotter]

Sorni wrote:
> chuck wrote:
> >
> > Ever since the Patriot Act, the cops around here are searching just
> > about every car they pull over that has a black/under 30 driver. I
> > love it when they call asking for donations for the police union
> > fund. I explain, "Since you been trampling our rights after the
> > Patriot Act, all donations I used to contribute now go to the ACLU."
>
> Supporting defenders of pedophiles makes you feel...good?
>
> From http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp :


Typical winger talking point. You're such a sheep. The ACLU will stand
up for civil liberties, no matter how nasty the defendant. They do not
condone or agree with Nambla, but still protect their right to speech.
They'll defend yours as well. That takes big brass balls, knowing that
dittohead wingers like yourself will always jump on the outrage wagon.

[Werehatrack]

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 01:16:48 GMT, "Sorni"
> wrote:

>Frank Drackman wrote:
>> > wrote in message >
>>> Begging a cop to leave is like dangling a string in front of a cat.
>>> He's heard it a thousand times, and nine hundred and ninety five of
>>> those times he's gone on to find drugs or stolen property on the
>>> person that just "has to get to class right now" or whatever.
>
>
>> Are you trying to sat that 95 percent of all traffic stops result in
>> illegal drugs or stolen property being found?
>
>
>Read his paragraph again.
>
>Light bulb go off?

More important, ever heard of a throwdown bag? If a given cop's
finding something 99.5% of the time that he stops someone who gripes
that they're pressed for time or in a hurry, you can bet big money
that he's manufacturing evidence.


--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

[Bill Baka]

landotter wrote:
> Gooserider wrote:
>> "landotter" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> Gooserider wrote:
>>>> "Sorni" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> landotter wrote:
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> landotter wrote:
>>>>>>>> Fair warning: rant
>>>>>>> Sounds to me like you're asking for the extra attention. You always
>>>>>>> have to keep in mind, that there is the letter of the law, and there
>>>>>>> is human nature. When they confict, human nature will always carry
>>>>>>> the day.
>>>>>> What the **** about riding a bike in the park is asking for extra
>>>>>> attention, asshole?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The letter of the law is that the barriers in parks are to keep
>>>>>> motorized traffic out, and that these cops were just out to be
>>>>>> assholes.
>>>>>>>> It's not the first time a cop in this city has just randomly
>>>>>>>> brain****ed me either. I've been pulled over a couple times and the
>>>>>>>> cop got mad that I *wasn't* drunk, so made me do all sorts of
>>>>>>>> bizarre things while I begged to just blow so I could get home.
>>>>>>> Begging a cop to leave is like dangling a string in front of a cat.
>>>>>>> He's heard it a thousand times, and nine hundred and ninety five of
>>>>>>> those times he's gone on to find drugs or stolen property on the
>>>>>>> person that just "has to get to class right now" or whatever.
>>>>>> And asking somebody who's dead sober in a suit on their way to a
>>>>>> symphony performance, who was going 3mph over the speed limit on a
>>>>>> ramp to hop on one leg, now hop on the other while hurling insults at
>>>>>> them--is something that I should just accept?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just do as you're asked. Keep your mouth shut other than to say "yes
>>>>>>> sir" and "no sir" (or maam as appropriate). If he wants to know
>>>>>>> why you did something or want to do something, he'll ask.
>>>>>> Nice brown shirt, asshole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Forgot to mention: several cars pulled in after me as they thought
>>>>>>>> the same thing, that just one lane was blocked. The cops yelled at
>>>>>>>> three of them to "FREEZE", collected licenses, strutted about, and
>>>>>>>> wrote gargantuan tickets.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What exactly was accomplished? Beats me
>>>>>>> Ummm, traffic enforcement?
>>>>>> There was a road, they drove on it, the cops wrote them tickets for an
>>>>>> imaginary barrier that wasn't there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now go back in that dark room and give Babs Bush another poke, she's
>>>>>> excited to see that mighty corndog of yours.
>>>>> Can't imagine why anyone would dislike you LOL LOL LOL
>>>> Yeah, quite a pleasant individual.
>>> Sorni's the biggest dickhead on this group, that's for sure. I was
>>> reacting to an individual commenting without knowing jack **** about
>>> the corruption and hostility of my city's police officers. It's not New
>>> Orleans, but it's damn close.
>>>
>>> Do I use my big fat mouth with the cops? Of course not, but when you've
>>> been humiliated in public by some sadistic guy with a gun, you tend to
>>> not like people who have some kind of apparent clairvoyance and assume
>>> that you're at fault.
>> I was referring to you. You attacked another poster with inappropriate
>> profanity and name calling. That's uncalled for, and casts doubt upon your
>> alleged calmness in the face of the police.
>
> The other poster inferred that I was the cause of the incident. That's
> like saying a rape victim is at fault. My anger is fully justified. I
> got harrassed by three redneck cops showing off in front of each other
> and somebody has the audacity to suggest that I was asking for it?
> That's ****ing insane.
>
In this I side with Landotter since I have been ****ed over by flat
assed crooked cops and I know the frustration. In my case the cops
happened to be Santa Clara, Ca. city cops, but their attitude is the
same. "We got the badges and there's 2 of us, so if we say you were
doing 73 in a 20, then you were and here's your ticket."
Even if you have 2 passengers in the car to back you up the judge gives
it to the cops, so it is an automatic loss/screw.
Bill Baka

[Bill Baka]

landotter wrote:
> Werehatrack wrote:
>> On 3 Jun 2006 22:45:15 -0700, "landotter" > wrote:
>>
>>> Fair warning: rant
>> Call the mayor's office. Call the newspapers. All of them. Don't
>> let them hide this under a rock.
>
> I'll probably file a complaint, but as far as hiring an attorney--the
> guy had two good ole' boys with him, so my story will matter very very
> little. Police department here is incredibly corrupt.

If even one of them shows up you lose since the judge always finds in
favor of the 'Good guys', no matter how corrupt. Same source of paycheck.

>> Oh, and I'll bet that if you look around, you can get an attorney, ask
>> for a reset of the court date for the ticket, and watch as the cop
>> fails to show up. With a lawyer present, this almost always results
>> in the ticket being dismissed because the prosecution wasn't ready at
>> trial.
>>
>> Personally, I'd rather pay a landshark twice as much as the fine in
>> order to keep the city from getting a penny in fines that they didn't
>
>
> I don't have the funds for an attorney now, though as I said my chances
> are slim, but the thought is wonderful.
>
> I *did* go to court here a few years ago to testify against one of the
> officers that harrassed me during an unwarranted traffic stop. He got
> let go.
>
Typical. I have noticed that cops are more harassing since the 'Patriot
act', which anyone with half a brain cell knows is bull**** and leading
to a police type state. When it gets to the point of Germany in the late
30's, "Show me your papers.", at random checkpoints then I move to a
more civilized country. Only cowards give up their rights freely, hence
I vote Democrat or at least the least stupid/incompetent candidate.
For me this means the Tuesday elections.
Bill Baka

[rwwff@yahoo.com]

landotter wrote:
> Sorni's the biggest dickhead on this group, that's for sure. I was
> reacting to an individual commenting without knowing jack **** about
> the corruption and hostility of my city's police officers. It's not New
> Orleans, but it's damn close.

I only commented based upon the material you provided in the original
post. If you do not feel the suggestions are useful, then that is your
perogative, feel free to do something else.

> Do I use my big fat mouth with the cops? Of course not, but when you've
> been humiliated in public by some sadistic guy with a gun, you tend to
> not like people who have some kind of apparent clairvoyance and assume
> that you're at fault.

Never said it was your fault. I personally think fault is a waste of
time. I just posted some suggestions that may be useful to someone in
a similar situation.

[rwwff@yahoo.com]

Frank Drackman wrote:
> > wrote in message >
> > Begging a cop to leave is like dangling a string in front of a cat.
> > He's heard it a thousand times, and nine hundred and ninety five of
> > those times he's gone on to find drugs or stolen property on the person
> > that just "has to get to class right now" or whatever.
> >
> >
> Are you trying to sat that 95 percent of all traffic stops result in illegal
> drugs or stolen property being found?

Nope.

Read closer.

"begging a cop to leave" being the operative phrase.

[Sorni]

landotter wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> landotter wrote:
>>> Gooserider wrote:
>>>> "Sorni" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> landotter wrote:
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> landotter wrote:
>>>>>>>> Fair warning: rant
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds to me like you're asking for the extra attention. You
>>>>>>> always have to keep in mind, that there is the letter of the
>>>>>>> law, and there is human nature. When they confict, human
>>>>>>> nature will always carry the day.
>>
>>>>>> What the **** about riding a bike in the park is asking for extra
>>>>>> attention, asshole?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The letter of the law is that the barriers in parks are to keep
>>>>>> motorized traffic out, and that these cops were just out to be
>>>>>> assholes.
>>
>>>>>>>> It's not the first time a cop in this city has just randomly
>>>>>>>> brain****ed me either. I've been pulled over a couple times and
>>>>>>>> the cop got mad that I *wasn't* drunk, so made me do all sorts
>>>>>>>> of bizarre things while I begged to just blow so I could get
>>>>>>>> home.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Begging a cop to leave is like dangling a string in front of a
>>>>>>> cat. He's heard it a thousand times, and nine hundred and ninety
>>>>>>> five of those times he's gone on to find drugs or stolen
>>>>>>> property on the person that just "has to get to class right
>>>>>>> now" or whatever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And asking somebody who's dead sober in a suit on their way to a
>>>>>> symphony performance, who was going 3mph over the speed limit on
>>>>>> a ramp to hop on one leg, now hop on the other while hurling
>>>>>> insults at them--is something that I should just accept?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just do as you're asked. Keep your mouth shut other than to say
>>>>>>> "yes sir" and "no sir" (or maam as appropriate). If he wants
>>>>>>> to know why you did something or want to do something, he'll
>>>>>>> ask.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice brown shirt, asshole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Forgot to mention: several cars pulled in after me as they
>>>>>>>> thought the same thing, that just one lane was blocked. The
>>>>>>>> cops yelled at three of them to "FREEZE", collected licenses,
>>>>>>>> strutted about, and wrote gargantuan tickets.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What exactly was accomplished? Beats me
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ummm, traffic enforcement?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was a road, they drove on it, the cops wrote them tickets
>>>>>> for an imaginary barrier that wasn't there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now go back in that dark room and give Babs Bush another poke,
>>>>>> she's excited to see that mighty corndog of yours.
>>
>>>>> Can't imagine why anyone would dislike you LOL LOL LOL
>>
>>>> Yeah, quite a pleasant individual.
>>
>>> Sorni's the biggest dickhead on this group, that's for sure. I was
>>> reacting to an individual commenting without knowing jack **** about
>>> the corruption and hostility of my city's police officers. It's not
>>> New Orleans, but it's damn close.
>>>
>>> Do I use my big fat mouth with the cops? Of course not, but when
>>> you've been humiliated in public by some sadistic guy with a gun,
>>> you tend to not like people who have some kind of apparent
>>> clairvoyance and assume that you're at fault.
>>
>> The fact is rwwff wasn't abusive or even rude in his reply to your
>> post. You then proceeded to call him an asshole (along with other
>> crude remarks) over and over. You don't think that's at least
>> possibly a CLUE as to your multiple run-ins with law enforcement?
>> Or is it always "them", "their fault", etc.?
>
> As always, Sorni, you're an ass. You don't know jack **** about the
> local boys in blue. I've never done a thing to provoke them. It's
> always been completely random. This one looks to be a hate crime as I
> was coming from the scene of a gay pride march. "Lets mess wit the
> fagit on the bike" was the attitude of the day.


So naturally you call a stranger on Usenet demeaning, crude names. Way to
get even!
>
>>
>> Sure /sounds/ like you've got "attitude issues" at the very least.
>
>
> **** off, Sorni--you'd cop an attitude if you went through the same
> experience. And as somebody that routinely posts mean spirted things
> on the group, you're one to talk.

I wait until someone attacks or insult or curses at me first. That's the
difference.

> I've been tackled by a cop and thrown around in Chicago for suspected
> murder and forced to do a line up on the street. At least then the
> cops apologized for mistaken identity, and showed genuine humility.

Jeez, between you and Ernest T. Baka, you guys sure do attract the Fuzz...

[Sorni]

landotter wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> chuck wrote:
>>>
>>> Ever since the Patriot Act, the cops around here are searching just
>>> about every car they pull over that has a black/under 30 driver. I
>>> love it when they call asking for donations for the police union
>>> fund. I explain, "Since you been trampling our rights after the
>>> Patriot Act, all donations I used to contribute now go to the ACLU."
>>
>> Supporting defenders of pedophiles makes you feel...good?
>>
>> From http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp :
>
>
> Typical winger talking point. You're such a sheep. The ACLU will stand
> up for civil liberties, no matter how nasty the defendant. They do not
> condone or agree with Nambla, but still protect their right to speech.
> They'll defend yours as well. That takes big brass balls, knowing that
> dittohead wingers like yourself will always jump on the outrage wagon.


You prefer kiddie porn? From
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/16/123428.php :
" The case is New York Vs Ferber, 458 U.S. 747. The ACLU in an amicus brief
to the Supreme Court argued that the possession of child pornography should
be legalized. Twilight of Liberty summarizes:

"The ACLU's position is this: criminalize the production but legalize the
sale and distribution of child pornography. This is the kind of lawyerly
distinction that no one on the Supreme Court found convincing. And with good
reason: as long as a free market in child pornography exists, there will
always be some producers willing to risk prosecution. Beyond this, there is
also the matter of how the sale of child pornography relates either to free
speech or the ends of good government. But most important, the central issue
is whether a free society should legalize transactions that involve the
wholesale sexploitation of children for profit." ACLU objects to the idea
that porn movie producers be required to maintain records of the ages of its
performers; this would be "a gross violation of privacy." "

Free speech? From http://www.snopes.com/rumors/godbless.htm :

" A similar message {God Bless the USA} displayed on a marquee outside the
Breen Elementary School in Rocklin, California, drew demands from the ACLU
that it be removed as a "hurtful, divisive message." School district
attorney Phillip Trujillo dismissed the the group's assertion as "absurd"
and maintained the words are a patriotic, not a religious, expression, and
district officials declined to remove the slogan from the school's sign. The
documents of both sides can be viewed on the web site of the Rocklin Unified
School District. "

Or maybe just Democracy?

"I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state
itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the
propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth.
Communism is the goal." -- Roger Baldwin Co-Founder, ACLU



The hell they don't condone or agree with NAMBLA, child porn producers,
terrorist rights, on and on. But try to express a God or patriotic thought
and /that/ they'll condemn with all their might.

Wake the hell up.

[landotter]

Sorni wrote:

> "I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state
> itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the
> propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth.
> Communism is the goal." -- Roger Baldwin Co-Founder, ACLU

Pathetic.

Baldwin made that statement in the 1800s before we knew what the
ramifications of such political structure would bring in actual use.

Grasping

at

Straws.

[Colorado Bicycler]

What am I doing wrong?

I am 66yo, haven't had a ticket of any kind since I was 39 (which was
for driving in a bus lane one minute after it changed from a bus/car
lane to a bus-only lane), all my contacts with police have been
positive. Never been tackled or charged with murder or been put in
jail.

So where have I been going wrong?

[Peter Cole]

landotter wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>
>> "I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state
>> itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the
>> propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth.
>> Communism is the goal." -- Roger Baldwin Co-Founder, ACLU
>
> Pathetic.
>
> Baldwin made that statement in the 1800s before we knew what the
> ramifications of such political structure would bring in actual use.
>
> Grasping
>
> at
>
> Straws.
>



From Wikipedia:

"Roger Nash Baldwin (January 21, 1884 – August 26, 1981) was a noted
civil libertarian, pacifist, and social activist who held Communist
views at least until age 55. He was one of the founders of the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and its executive director until 1950;
many of the ACLU's original landmark cases took place under his direction."


"Baldwin's pro-Communist leanings lasted until 1939 when he was
disillusioned by the Nazi-Soviet pact and broke off all radical ties; in
1927, he had visited the Soviet Union and wrote a book, Liberty Under
the Soviets, which contained extensive praise for the country he
denounced in a later book, A New Slavery, which condemned "the inhuman
communist police state tyranny" [1]. In the 1940s, Baldwin led the
campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members [2]."

[Sorni]

landotter wrote:

> Pathetic.

Defending pedophiles, kiddie porn consumers and NAMBLA? Damned right it's
pathetic.

Selective snipping for everyone! BS

[Sorni]

Colorado Bicycler wrote:
> What am I doing wrong?
>
> I am 66yo, haven't had a ticket of any kind since I was 39 (which was
> for driving in a bus lane one minute after it changed from a bus/car
> lane to a bus-only lane), all my contacts with police have been
> positive. Never been tackled or charged with murder or been put in
> jail.
>
> So where have I been going wrong?

You've got a lot to learn about being angry and miserable all the time. Get
with it, man!

[Bill Baka]

Sorni wrote:
> landotter wrote:
>> I've been tackled by a cop and thrown around in Chicago for suspected
>> murder and forced to do a line up on the street. At least then the
>> cops apologized for mistaken identity, and showed genuine humility.
>
> Jeez, between you and Ernest T. Baka, you guys sure do attract the Fuzz...
>
>
What's your problem? I haven't had a ticket since 1998 at the hands of
the corrupt Santa Clara city (not county) P.D. Now that I refuse to even
drive there I no longer get tickets.
Ernest T. Baka????
I avoid the Fuzz like the plague rather than provoke them. The country
cops up here north of Sacramento are not all that bad. Homeland Security
and Beale AFB are a pain in the ass though. More often than not when I
ride to the end of a road that is by the base fence it only takes about
a minute for some D.H.S. guys or M.P.s to come and start asking me
questions. 2 years ago they called a sheriff to take me, my bike, and
camera home, even though I was riding on a very public road. I sat in
the front and BS'ed with the deputy and even he said they were kind of
touchy about people with cameras by the base.
I didn't get the warm fuzzies over homeland security that day.
Bill Baka

[Peter Cole]

Sorni blog-quoted:

> You prefer kiddie porn? From
> http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/16/123428.php :
> " The case is New York Vs Ferber, 458 U.S. 747. The ACLU in an amicus brief
> to the Supreme Court argued that the possession of child pornography should
> be legalized. Twilight of Liberty summarizes:
>
> "The ACLU's position is this: criminalize the production but legalize the
> sale and distribution of child pornography. This is the kind of lawyerly
> distinction that no one on the Supreme Court found convincing. And with good
> reason: as long as a free market in child pornography exists, there will
> always be some producers willing to risk prosecution. Beyond this, there is
> also the matter of how the sale of child pornography relates either to free
> speech or the ends of good government. But most important, the central issue
> is whether a free society should legalize transactions that involve the
> wholesale sexploitation of children for profit." ACLU objects to the idea
> that porn movie producers be required to maintain records of the ages of its
> performers; this would be "a gross violation of privacy." "

*Opinion* from "Twilight of Liberty: The Legacy of the ACLU", an
anti-ACLU rant by:

William A. Donohue, president of the conservative Catholic League for
Religious and Civil Rights

Oh, the irony.

Other words of wisdom from that author:

"Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in
general and Catholicism in particular."

The ACLU position is a bit more nuanced than the knee-jerkers portray,
here's a link for those who have interest:
<http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/14793leg20020508.html>

And another on the defense of unpopular organizations:
<http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html>

[Sorni]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Sorni blog-quoted:

Yes I did quote a blog.

Do you disagree that the ACLU defends pedophiles, kiddie porn consumers (if
not producers too), known terrorists, AND of course the vaunted North
American Man-Boy Love Association?

That was my /only/ point to someone named "chuck" who said he sends 'em
money.

Sorry for expressing my opinion... BS

[Peter Cole]

Sorni wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Sorni blog-quoted:
>
> Yes I did quote a blog.
>
> Do you disagree that the ACLU defends pedophiles, kiddie porn consumers (if
> not producers too), known terrorists, AND of course the vaunted North
> American Man-Boy Love Association?
>
> That was my /only/ point to someone named "chuck" who said he sends 'em
> money.
>
> Sorry for expressing my opinion... BS

Well, I think you expressed (via quotes) some opinions of others. If you
agree with those opinions, fine.

I disagree with your summary of the ACLU. I don't think they defend
groups or individuals, they defend principles. From the link I posted:

"It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something
many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of
speech is most critical when the message is one most people find
repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains
true today."

[Dane Buson]

Sorni > wrote:
> chuck wrote:
>>
>> Ever since the Patriot Act, the cops around here are searching just
>> about every car they pull over that has a black/under 30 driver. I
>> love it when they call asking for donations for the police union
>> fund. I explain, "Since you been trampling our rights after the
>> Patriot Act, all donations I used to contribute now go to the ACLU."
>
> Supporting defenders of pedophiles makes you feel...good?

So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Seriously, anytime someone pulls out the "think of the children" card,
talks about child molesters, or accuses someone of supporting terrorism
my opinion of their argument goes right in the crapper. 95% of the time
they're pulling in these subjects because their argument is too weak to
stand real criticism.

I'm obviously not terribly happy about some of the unsavoury elements
the ACLU represents. But I'm a hell of a lot happier they're out there
doing these things than not. Oddly enough, when you defend freedom of
speech, you end up defending a lot of speech you find distasteful.

Of course, if you hate freedom feel free to denigrate them all you want.

--
Dane Buson -
"And don't tell me there isn't one bit of difference between null and space,
because that's exactly how much difference there is."
- Larry Wall

[Sorni]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> Sorni blog-quoted:
>>
>> Yes I did quote a blog.
>>
>> Do you disagree that the ACLU defends pedophiles, kiddie porn
>> consumers (if not producers too), known terrorists, AND of course
>> the vaunted North American Man-Boy Love Association?
>>
>> That was my /only/ point to someone named "chuck" who said he sends
>> 'em money.
>>
>> Sorry for expressing my opinion... BS
>
> Well, I think you expressed (via quotes) some opinions of others. If
> you agree with those opinions, fine.

No, I gave examples of quotes confirming or at least agreeing with my
opinions. (Granted, I should have checked my "sources" better; just did a
quick Google search.)

> I disagree with your summary of the ACLU. I don't think they defend
> groups or individuals, they defend principles. From the link I posted:
>
> "It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something
> many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of
> speech is most critical when the message is one most people find
> repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains
> true today."

Sounds good in theory, but in practice -- today -- the ACLU seems more
concerned with protecting the rights of terrorists, for example, than
American citizens. And free speech is fine as long as it's not pro-American
or religion. "God Bless the USA" on a school sign is a "hurtful, divisive
message"??? Kiddie porn is just "free expression"???

Sorry, I think they do a lot of harm and their values are completely
twisted. No quotes needed.

[Sorni]

Dane Buson wrote:
> Sorni > wrote:
>> chuck wrote:
>>>
>>> Ever since the Patriot Act, the cops around here are searching just
>>> about every car they pull over that has a black/under 30 driver. I
>>> love it when they call asking for donations for the police union
>>> fund. I explain, "Since you been trampling our rights after the
>>> Patriot Act, all donations I used to contribute now go to the ACLU."
>>
>> Supporting defenders of pedophiles makes you feel...good?
>
> So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
>
> Seriously, anytime someone pulls out the "think of the children" card,
> talks about child molesters, or accuses someone of supporting
> terrorism my opinion of their argument goes right in the crapper.
> 95% of the time they're pulling in these subjects because their
> argument is too weak to stand real criticism.
>
> I'm obviously not terribly happy about some of the unsavoury elements
> the ACLU represents. But I'm a hell of a lot happier they're out
> there doing these things than not. Oddly enough, when you defend
> freedom of speech, you end up defending a lot of speech you find
> distasteful.
>
> Of course, if you hate freedom feel free to denigrate them all you
> want.

If they defended /everyone's/ freedom then I'd agree with you. They don't.
Freedom of speech is fine unless it's pro-America, God or -- God forbid --
Bush. Then it's "hurtful and divisive" and should be squelched.

[Dane Buson]

Sorni > wrote:
> Dane Buson wrote:
>>
>> I'm obviously not terribly happy about some of the unsavoury elements
>> the ACLU represents. But I'm a hell of a lot happier they're out
>> there doing these things than not. Oddly enough, when you defend
>> freedom of speech, you end up defending a lot of speech you find
>> distasteful.
>>
>> Of course, if you hate freedom feel free to denigrate them all you
>> want.
>
> If they defended /everyone's/ freedom then I'd agree with you. They don't.
> Freedom of speech is fine unless it's pro-America, God or -- God forbid --
> Bush. Then it's "hurtful and divisive" and should be squelched.

They actually are pretty good about defending everyone. Of course there
are a lot more "God" cases up in court because the Immoral Minority is
busy pushing their particular agenda very very hard down everyone elses
throats. As to anti-pro-America activities, I can't think of anything
that would fit that definition that they are involved with.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ACLU defends church against zoning ban:
http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/25518prs20060419.html

"The East Point zoning ordinance is unconstitutional and unjust,. said
Maggie Garrett, staff counsel at the ACLU of Georgia. .The city of East
Point should not be discriminating against the Tabernacle Community
Baptist Church simply because it is a religious entity.."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NYCLU Challenges Coast Guard Ban on Religious Head Coverings in License
Photographs
http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/24780prs20060328.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ACLU of Rhode Island Files Appeal on Behalf of Christian Prisoner Barred
from Preaching at Religious Services
http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/23445prs20060112.html

"Spratt, who considers his preaching a "calling" from God, had been
preaching at religious services on a weekly basis under the supervision,
and with the support, of clergy at the ACI. The Department of
Corrections provided no evidence of security problems during, or as the
result of, his supervised preaching during the seven years he had been
doing so. Nonetheless, when the new warden took over, Spratt was ordered
to stop preaching."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ACLU of Michigan Defends Catholic Man Coerced to Convert to Pentecostal
Faith in Drug Rehab Program
http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/22354prs20051206.html

"I needed help," said Hanas. "Instead I was forced to practice someone
else's religion and I'm still being punished for that.."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ACLU of New Jersey Joins Lawsuit Supporting Second-Grader's Right to
Sing "Awesome God" at Talent Show
http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/20174prs20050920.html

"According to the complaint filed by the second-grade student and her
parents, an elementary school in Frenchtown prohibited the student,
Olivia Turton, from singing the song "Awesome God" in a voluntary,
after-school talent show."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

You're not against little girls singing songs about God are you? How
can you *not* support the ACLU? Unless of course you hate winsome 8
year old girls singing treacly songs about *Jeeeeeeesussss*!

;-)

--
Dane Buson -
The older a man gets, the farther he had to walk to school as a boy.

[Peter Cole]

Sorni wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:

>> I disagree with your summary of the ACLU. I don't think they defend
>> groups or individuals, they defend principles. From the link I posted:
>>
>> "It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something
>> many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of
>> speech is most critical when the message is one most people find
>> repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains
>> true today."
>
> Sounds good in theory, but in practice -- today -- the ACLU seems more
> concerned with protecting the rights of terrorists, for example, than
> American citizens.

How is it that they "seem" that?

> And free speech is fine as long as it's not pro-American
> or religion.

There is nothing wrong with "pro-America" or "pro-religion", the problem
arises when you combine the two sentiments in a civic context, such as:

> "God Bless the USA" on a school sign


> is a "hurtful, divisive
> message"???

It's certainly "divisive", "hurtful" is not a word I'd use, but I think
it's un-American.

> Kiddie porn is just "free expression"???

Sorry, I'm not comfortable discussing such a difficult topic in this
type of forum. I think the issues can be complex.
<http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/14793leg20020508.html>

> Sorry, I think they do a lot of harm and their values are completely
> twisted. No quotes needed.

I think their position is often misrepresented.

[chuck]

On 2006-06-05, landotter > wrote:
>
> Sorni wrote:
>> chuck wrote:
>> >
>> > Ever since the Patriot Act, the cops around here are searching just
>> > about every car they pull over that has a black/under 30 driver. I
>> > love it when they call asking for donations for the police union
>> > fund. I explain, "Since you been trampling our rights after the
>> > Patriot Act, all donations I used to contribute now go to the ACLU."
>>
>> Supporting defenders of pedophiles makes you feel...good?
>>
>> From http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp :
>
>
> Typical winger talking point. You're such a sheep. The ACLU will stand
> up for civil liberties, no matter how nasty the defendant. They do not
> condone or agree with Nambla, but still protect their right to speech.
> They'll defend yours as well. That takes big brass balls, knowing that
> dittohead wingers like yourself will always jump on the outrage wagon.
>

The worst pedophiles are the ones abusing power now. Evidence? Check out
http://www.armchairsubversive.com/

This thread had nothing to do with pedophiles, but since Sorni had to
bring it up, follow the link and see the worst of the worst.

[landotter]

chuck wrote:
> On 2006-06-05, landotter > wrote:
> >
> > Sorni wrote:
> >> chuck wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Ever since the Patriot Act, the cops around here are searching just
> >> > about every car they pull over that has a black/under 30 driver. I
> >> > love it when they call asking for donations for the police union
> >> > fund. I explain, "Since you been trampling our rights after the
> >> > Patriot Act, all donations I used to contribute now go to the ACLU."
> >>
> >> Supporting defenders of pedophiles makes you feel...good?
> >>
> >> From http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp :
> >
> >
> > Typical winger talking point. You're such a sheep. The ACLU will stand
> > up for civil liberties, no matter how nasty the defendant. They do not
> > condone or agree with Nambla, but still protect their right to speech.
> > They'll defend yours as well. That takes big brass balls, knowing that
> > dittohead wingers like yourself will always jump on the outrage wagon.
> >
>
> The worst pedophiles are the ones abusing power now. Evidence? Check out
> http://www.armchairsubversive.com/
>
> This thread had nothing to do with pedophiles, but since Sorni had to
> bring it up, follow the link and see the worst of the worst.

Yeah, I would never have posted such a link in normal circumstances
either, but kudos to a highly appropriate knuckle sandwich.

It's very common here in the belt buckle of the bible belt to see all
sorts of social conservatives in the news, having been caught in
bizarre circumstances with a hooker, or at some of our numerous titty
bars. Why do we have so many dang strip clubs anyway? Their prevalence
compared to the number in more liberal cities where I've lived is
obviously due to the social conservatives trying to crush sex to gain
power. If they can't get it at home, then, yeeehaw!--let's go to Ken's
Gold Club. If you get caught, tell 'em the devil made you do it and
have a theatrical collapse on Sunday morning.

The pedophelia is a direct result, like our numerous go-go joints, of
sexual repression. It's not the only cause, certainly, but when you
demonize normal adult feelings you get twisted results in all kinds of
interesting flavors.

[Frank Drackman]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Frank Drackman wrote:
>> > wrote in message >
>> > Begging a cop to leave is like dangling a string in front of a cat.
>> > He's heard it a thousand times, and nine hundred and ninety five of
>> > those times he's gone on to find drugs or stolen property on the person
>> > that just "has to get to class right now" or whatever.
>> >
>> >
>> Are you trying to sat that 95 percent of all traffic stops result in
>> illegal
>> drugs or stolen property being found?
>
> Nope.
>
> Read closer.
>
> "begging a cop to leave" being the operative phrase.
>

Ok, are you saying that in 99.5 percent of the cases where a police officers
makes a traffic stop and the driver tells them that they are in a hurry,
results in illegal drugs or stolen property being found?

[rwwff@yahoo.com]

Frank Drackman wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Frank Drackman wrote:
> >> > wrote in message >
> >> > Begging a cop to leave is like dangling a string in front of a cat.
> >> > He's heard it a thousand times, and nine hundred and ninety five of
> >> > those times he's gone on to find drugs or stolen property on the person
> >> > that just "has to get to class right now" or whatever.
>
> Ok, are you saying that in 99.5 percent of the cases where a police officers
> makes a traffic stop and the driver tells them that they are in a hurry,
> results in illegal drugs or stolen property being found?

Nope.
Read closer.
"begging a cop to leave" being the operative phrase.

Large difference between "tell" and "beg".
Very large.

[Frank Drackman]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Frank Drackman wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Frank Drackman wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message >
>> >> > Begging a cop to leave is like dangling a string in front of a cat.
>> >> > He's heard it a thousand times, and nine hundred and ninety five of
>> >> > those times he's gone on to find drugs or stolen property on the
>> >> > person
>> >> > that just "has to get to class right now" or whatever.
>>
>> Ok, are you saying that in 99.5 percent of the cases where a police
>> officers
>> makes a traffic stop and the driver tells them that they are in a hurry,
>> results in illegal drugs or stolen property being found?
>
> Nope.
> Read closer.
> "begging a cop to leave" being the operative phrase.
>
> Large difference between "tell" and "beg".
> Very large.
>

OK, I think that I understand it now. Where did you get the statistic that
in 99.5 percent of the cases where a police officers makes a traffic stop
and the driver begs the cop to leave results in illegal drugs or stolen
property being found?

[rwwff@yahoo.com]

Frank Drackman wrote:
> > Nope.
> > Read closer.
> > "begging a cop to leave" being the operative phrase.
> >
> > Large difference between "tell" and "beg".
> > Very large.
> >
> OK, I think that I understand it now. Where did you get the statistic that
> in 99.5 percent of the cases where a police officers makes a traffic stop
> and the driver begs the cop to leave results in illegal drugs or stolen
> property being found?

You're the only one I know calling it a statistic. Its an off the
cuff observation, nothing more, nothing less. If I'm gonna give a
statistic from a study, I'll footnote it.

[Frank Drackman]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Frank Drackman wrote:
>> > Nope.
>> > Read closer.
>> > "begging a cop to leave" being the operative phrase.
>> >
>> > Large difference between "tell" and "beg".
>> > Very large.
>> >
>> OK, I think that I understand it now. Where did you get the statistic
>> that
>> in 99.5 percent of the cases where a police officers makes a traffic
>> stop
>> and the driver begs the cop to leave results in illegal drugs or stolen
>> property being found?
>
> You're the only one I know calling it a statistic. Its an off the
> cuff observation, nothing more, nothing less. If I'm gonna give a
> statistic from a study, I'll footnote it.
>

I think that I completely understand now, you made it up to support your
opinion.

I thought that you might have access to some study that I had not reviewed
yet.

[rwwff@yahoo.com]

Frank Drackman wrote:
> I think that I completely understand now, you made it up to support your
> opinion.

Absolutely. Based on personal observations, but entirely unscientific
and untested.

[Gooserider]

"Peter Cole" > wrote in message
. ..
> Sorni wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> Sorni blog-quoted:
>>
>> Yes I did quote a blog.
>>
>> Do you disagree that the ACLU defends pedophiles, kiddie porn consumers
>> (if not producers too), known terrorists, AND of course the vaunted North
>> American Man-Boy Love Association?
>>
>> That was my /only/ point to someone named "chuck" who said he sends 'em
>> money.
>>
>> Sorry for expressing my opinion... BS
>
> Well, I think you expressed (via quotes) some opinions of others. If you
> agree with those opinions, fine.
>
> I disagree with your summary of the ACLU. I don't think they defend groups
> or individuals, they defend principles. From the link I posted:
>
> "It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many
> people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is
> most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was
> true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today."
>
But defending the rights of people to break the law and hurt innocents isn't
a good thing. That's what defending pedophiles ane child pornographers does.

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
"Gooserider" > writes:

>> "It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many
>> people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is
>> most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was
>> true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today."
>>
> But defending the rights of people to break the law and hurt innocents isn't
> a good thing.

Yes it is. Defending the rights of those people is a different matter
from defending those people themselves, and that they even have rights
at all (e.g: the right to a fair trial) doesn't absolve them of their
responsibility and answerability to society. Justice has to be equitable
all across the board, or else it ain't Justice anymore.

> That's what defending pedophiles ane child pornographers does.

Do you mean before, or after they're convicted?


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Gooserider]

"Tom Keats" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Gooserider" > writes:
>
>>> "It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something
>>> many
>>> people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is
>>> most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That
>>> was
>>> true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today."
>>>
>> But defending the rights of people to break the law and hurt innocents
>> isn't
>> a good thing.
>
> Yes it is. Defending the rights of those people is a different matter
> from defending those people themselves, and that they even have rights
> at all (e.g: the right to a fair trial) doesn't absolve them of their
> responsibility and answerability to society. Justice has to be equitable
> all across the board, or else it ain't Justice anymore.
>
>> That's what defending pedophiles ane child pornographers does.
>
> Do you mean before, or after they're convicted?
>

The child pornography argument the ACLU put forward was the legalization of
the sale and distribution of child pornography. That is an indefensible
position, because it is tantamount to child molestation by proxy. Even if
the production remains criminalized, the existance of a legal market for it
will cause untold numbers of children to be molested in order to meet the
market's demands. That will not stand. Child porn is child molestation.
Period. Any organization that wants to legalize the possession of taped or
photographed acts of molestation is off its collective rocker.

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
"Gooserider" > writes:

>>> But defending the rights of people to break the law and hurt innocents
>>> isn't
>>> a good thing.
>>
>> Yes it is. Defending the rights of those people is a different matter
>> from defending those people themselves, and that they even have rights
>> at all (e.g: the right to a fair trial) doesn't absolve them of their
>> responsibility and answerability to society. Justice has to be equitable
>> all across the board, or else it ain't Justice anymore.
>>
>>> That's what defending pedophiles ane child pornographers does.
>>
>> Do you mean before, or after they're convicted?
>>
>
> The child pornography argument the ACLU put forward was the legalization of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> the sale and distribution of child pornography. That is an indefensible
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> position, because it is tantamount to child molestation by proxy. Even if
> the production remains criminalized, the existance of a legal market for it
> will cause untold numbers of children to be molested in order to meet the
> market's demands. That will not stand. Child porn is child molestation.
> Period. Any organization that wants to legalize the possession of taped or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Possession and sale-&-distribution are two different things.

> photographed acts of molestation is off its collective rocker.

Of course I entirely and wholeheartedly agree with you about the
abhorrentness of child molestation.

How far did the ACLU get with this argument of theirs?
But I perceive some informational gaps. In what sorts of situations
does the ACLU think the sale & distribution of child porn should be
legalized? Do they actually say "legalized", or just "decriminalized"?
What does the ACLU have to say about the rights of children?

I once heard on a local radio talk show, the point raised that
prisoners should have access to at least soft porn (i.e: pix of
consenting adults,) because that would supposedly relieve their
pent-up sexual stress, so they'd be less likely to act out in
real life when released back into society. It was an interesting
point. Of course, nobody with any love for humanity would apply
child pornography to that idea.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Peter Cole]

Gooserider wrote:

> But defending the rights of people to break the law and hurt innocents isn't
> a good thing. That's what defending pedophiles ane child pornographers does.

Nobody has a "right to break the law" (by definition). The purpose of a
defense team is to argue that either: no law has been broken, or the law
itself is illegal (contradicted by laws of higher precedence).

[Peter Cole]

Gooserider wrote:

>
> The child pornography argument the ACLU put forward was the legalization of
> the sale and distribution of child pornography.

I don't think that's an accurate description of the position of the ACLU.


This is a fairly recent statement of their position regarding a House
bill on child pornography:

<http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/14793leg20020508.html>

[Frank Drackman]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Frank Drackman wrote:
>> I think that I completely understand now, you made it up to support your
>> opinion.
>
> Absolutely. Based on personal observations, but entirely unscientific
> and untested.
>

Got it. Thanks for the explanation & happy riding