Skip to main content

View Diary: U C Davis Police Used "Standard" Proceedures (54 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  answer mines first and then we will talk (0+ / 0-)

    i am not interested in one sided conversations where I have to continually jump through hoops but you feel you are not required to do the same

    do you find the situation I describe legit or not. Its not hypoes. Its  actual fact pattern.

    •  I have no problem with an anti-mask law (0+ / 0-)

      If you are asking for a definition of legitimate reasons, I would say there should be a balancing test involving factors such as public safety and others having an interest in utilizing the same space.  I do not believe in a bright line rule for what is and isn't legitimate.  I believe that a definition without some wiggle room is unjust.

      •  Do you believe using a law such as this (0+ / 0-)

        under the circumstance I describe is a valid application of such a law?

        Its a straight question forward here but I feel I am dealing with an attorney rather than someone wanting to answer the question. Even your attempt to discuss procedure over substantive impact is legalistic. Its a way for lawyers to avoid dsicussing the  impact of an action while seeming to be 'reasonable" despite the unreasonableness of the underlying action.

        Let me cut the chase: If you don't have a problem with the application of the law that is used to justify pepper spraying and arresting people where it was used as pretext to arrest protestors, I don't consider you someone reasonable because your standard of application of the law is so far out of whack with reality as to surrender to absurdity.

        You are for a flexible text because you want to prevent "injustice" but see no problem with a law arresting someone on pretext of a mask to prevent the underlying speech. You can, of course, play the denial game. You  can say "you can't prove thats why they did that." Its "facially neutral."

        Thats been the game for quite a bit. Then when I asked why the differentiation of treatment between the 4000 arrests of OWS to zero arrests for the Tea Party, what would your answer be then?

        I don't consider any of this pretext a real conversation. If the pretext is not real, the procedures are not legitimate.

        •  I'm not trying to avoid discussing impact (0+ / 0-)

          I believe discussion of procedure has to come first, though.  We can't talk about the impact of action until we define what that action is.

          I am for a flexible text because of philosophical issues that have a lot to do with the living constitution vs textualist debate in constitutional law.

          What do I think of the different treatment of OWS and the Tea Party?  I believe that OWS is, or should be, civil disobedience through non-violent law-breaking in an attempt to provoke a disproportionate response from the establishment.  The Tea Party did not try to provoke that kind of response.  OWS has not yet provoked a sufficiently disproportionate response to create the sort of effect that I would like to see.  I may a bit hardened, but I see what has happened so far as child's play compared to the full potential of the movement.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site