I think the argument is not that his behavior is stunning etiquette, but it is understandable and his frustration is relatable. Optimally he would've just sat in silence, or driven around to the other entrance, but all things considered, her behavior was more unacceptable. Or to put it another way - this was three minutes out of their respective days. There may be an infinite number of circumstances on either side that we don't see, that would swing our opinion either way. However, if we ignore their emotional states, and just look at the principle, she was dead wrong.

If a restaurant or movie theatre wants to kick you out in the middle of a meal, you can't stay. If a hotel wants to kick you out at 2 am (and lets you pack and take your stuff), you can't stay. That's why they can call the cops to get you out if you refuse to leave - because they have the presumptive right to decide who stays and goes. You have no right to call the cops and ask them to stop the owner from kicking you out, because you have no fundamental right to stay there.

I am not going to say that you're trolling, and your arguments are not unreasonable or dickish, but you're wrong. (In principle) you have a number of potential recourses that you can choose when a proprietor asks you to leave. (in principle) refusing to leave is not one of the options you have any right to exercise.

We can come up with scenarios where it could be argued that you should be allowed to refuse to leave:

1. You're staying at a ski lodge and you will die if you are kicked out into the cold. Then we're no longer talking consumer rights but emergency / health and safety rights.

2. If you leave the premises, you would lose all your other means of recourse, for example if you don't have contact or identifying information for the business you're at. In that case you can ask for that information, and then leave.

In principle, however, sticking around isn't an option, and there's no sane reason why it should be an option. If the business in question doesn't have a valid reason for kicking you out, you get to sue them afterwards.

The UK has done a much better job in handling the situation than the US has, it seems, though it has had more time to do so than the southern US. I don't think they achieved it by implementing systemic racism in the opposite direction, though. And let's be clear, even though we may feel justified in kicking out higher achieving students to replace them with a quota-satisfying minority group, that is systemically racist, the very thing we are trying to abolish. It is a clear example of committing a wrong to hopefully achieve a right. And it will never feel like anything short of racism to the individual student that gets short changed.

So let's say that it works, and black folk begin to integrate more successfully into the encompassing community, and the encompassing communities don't end up resenting them for the racist laws that are helping them to do s . Will we ever be remove these racist rules? Or will we be arguing about an ever small statistical deviation somewhere? Furthermore, all of the people that are unjustly damaged by these new racist rules (ie. Ashley), won't they then be due reparations in the future too? Who would pay those? Where would it end? Would it end?

I just doubt that more racism is the cure for racism.

Thank god automatic translation still isn't fully solved... I'll never not get a kick out of sentences like: "Zahumensky crazy ride a few hours after watching shocking videos males law implications. "Yes, the police arrested a driver license," confirmed police spokeswoman Elena trenčianska Antalová. In addition, also he came on the weapons owned legally."

Im not surprised for kids of this age not to know.

For more of this i give you, Kids react to old technology. I always get a kick out of these. Kids are hillarious and awesome.
VCR https://youtu.be/kesMOzzNBiQ
ROTARY PHONE https://youtu.be/XkuirEweZvM
WALKMAN https://youtu.be/Uk_vV-JRZ6E
TYPEWRITERS https://youtu.be/vfxRfkZdiAQ
OLD CAMERAS https://youtu.be/DDtWxURLlPk
OLD COMPUTER https://youtu.be/PF7EpEnglgk

They are almost always relieved or suspended, at least while the investigation is in process. Once the initial furor blows over, they are either quietly put back on duty or sometimes fired. Since most departments don't bother to blacklist them, they will simply find another place to be a cop.

Just like the two cops who killed the kid with the fake airsoft gun (Tamir Rice) both had prior incidents that, in any normal job would have prevented them from working in that field ever again. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Tamir_Rice and read the background of the officers. Both had incidents that should have made them unsuitable for duty, but they both were able to continue working and then were let off the hook by a grand jury after the shoo...murder of Rice. Since they were acquitted, the wonderful police unions mean they get to stay cops.

Now you tell me another field of employment that gets away with this. You might say the military, but generally if you screw up badly they will make you go away. There might be a cover up, but you are going to be kicked out, court martialed, or put in a dead end place where you will never advance out of nor have authority to make any important decisions. Politics is close, but if you aren't super high up in the food chain you will pay for it as well. Police, though, they will walk 99% of the time. Even the officer who shot the teen here in Austin that was wandering around naked and threatening people, he was only fired and this town is one of the most liberal towns in the USA. We've already established that a lot of police forces don't even bother checking with previous employers, so I expect he will be able to go someplace else and be a cop again.

The most fun thing? This has been going on for decades, hell, probably a couple of centuries. Only since the advent of video recording technology that was easily portable have we been shown the true nature of the beast. But, and forgive me as I can't find the exact quote, someone said something along the lines of that the majority of the public will forget anything in six weeks. Over and over we seem to prove that as we keep letting these people get away with impunity.

Thought you might get a kick out of this http://videosift.com/video/What-has-the-ECHR-ever-done-for-us

@Jinx

hey thanks for keeping this conversation going and not just making assumptions and allowing us both to come to a better understanding.

though i am not really surprised,i am gladdened.

in my opinion,i think this situation may be a problem with indentifying with labels and maybe putting too much weight on them to convey complicated and complex human interactions.

i would call myself a social justice warrior,but i would never identify as those who behave is the extremists do.but to imply that the responsibility is on ME,or any other critic,to redefine these radical social justice warriors as somehow not being representative of the majority,is a false dynamic,because that is how they define themselves.

basically the "No true scotsman" fallacy.which is employed ad-nauseum by these extremists.that somehow if you do not adhere to their radical agenda you are somehow not qualified to label yourself:feminist,anarchist (this has been directed at me),socialist, etc etc.

this is just a silly and binary way of breaking down peoples complex human perceptions and understandings to fit a narrow,and restrictive narrative,in order to achieve an agenda.

so while we all viewed GW bush's "if you're not with us,you're against us",as an inane and utterly stupid statement.how come there is little push back when the EXACT same tactic is used to silence someone who may not be 100% on board with a certain agenda?

does me posting this video automatically translate to me being "anti-social justice warrior"?

of course not! that is just silly,but in todays climate that is exactly how some people view complex situations,and it HAS to stop!

you brought up police.
good.
lets use that as an example.
the fact the americas militarized and dysfunctional police force has accounted for more police shootings than soldiers have died in iraq.do we REALLY need to be told that it is not ALL cops.

of course not.again,that is silly but it DOES mean that maybe there is a problem within the institution that needs to be addressed.

here is a perfect case for social justice warriors to bring this corruption and rot to the surface,and here we have black lives matter.which is receiving mixed coverage in the media,but they have gotten people talking and even some incremental reforms in the woks AND,just recently..6 cops fired from a cleveland precinct for shooting civilians.this is where social justice warriors are not only necessary but vital!

but what if.....

those cops who were feeling threatened,or intimidated by the criticism and examination of their institution coming from black lives matters decided to use a tactic right out of these extremists playbook?

maybe some doxxing?
exposing personal information about the protesters?
how about a few false accusations of rape?
maybe personal harassing calls to friends and family members of the black lives matter movement?
how about some false charges of harassment and sexual discrimination?

that would effectively shut down the black lives matter movement within weeks,and how would we respond to that kind of underhanded tactics?

we would be outraged.
we would be furious at the absolute abuse of power.a power bestowed by the state.

and our outrage would be justified.

do you see where i am coming from here?

in the example i have given,which may or not be the best analogy.we can easily see the abuse of power as a form of bullying to get a group that is a dissenting ideology..to shut..the fuck..up.

freedom of speech is NOT just speech you or i agree with,or happen to support,but it also speech that we may dislike,disagree and even find offensive.

but by allowing those we dislike or disagree to say their piece,allows us and everybody else to examine,discern and ultimately discard as ridiculous.or,converesly,find some merit that was previously hidden from us,due to our lack of knowledge or understanding.

i realize i am reiterating my previous point,but i think it is so very important.

free speech allows the free flow of ideas and dialogue and allows good ideas to be absorbed into the body politic and the bad ones discarded into the trash bin.

but there MUST be the allowance of the free flow of thought!

so when i post a video such as this i am not ridiculing actual socially conscious people.i am exposing bad ideas,supported by narrow minded people who wish to impose THEIR sense of how a society should be and attempt to circumvent the very slow process of discussion,argument and debate by hijacking the conversation and shutting down all dissent and disagreement with the most fascist tactics possible.

up until a month ago i was fairly ignorant to things like gamergate and whatnot.i thought i had a pretty fair understanding of what a social justice warrior was,and even included myself as one.

but then,quite by accident,i fell upon a few stories that highly disturbed me.one ,in particular was the case of greg allen elliot who was being criminally prosecuted for harassment on twitter.

now the case was finally resolved,and elliot was found not guilty.
so hooray for justice right?
free speech won in the end right?
or did it...did elliot actually win?
i am not so sure.

you see.
he was a web designer.
and once he was charged 3 years ago,he was banned from any internet use.so effectively he was jobless.
on top of that his defense cost 100k.
sounds like a loss to me.

now let us examine stephanie guthrie.a prominent toronto feminist and tedtalk speaker:
1.she made the accusation of harassment and brought the charges.
2.even though this all started with a man who created a game where anita sarkesians faced was punched,and was the supposed imetus for all this fuss,guthrie never laid charges against the creator of the game.though she did,along with her followers harassed and bullied this man until he closed down his account.so chock one up for feminism? i guess?
4.what guthrie found so reprehensible about elliot was that he had the audacity to question guthries rage and called for a calm interaction.(mainly because there are literally 100's of face-punching games).
5.guthrie and her followers found this call for calm offensive and doxxed elliot and proceeded to harass his employer,his family and ffirends.
6.elliot lost his job.his employer could not handle the harassment.so feminist win again? i guess?
7.when guthrie blocked elliot on twitter she continued to publicly accuse him of misogyny,bigot and even a pedophile.
8.she then brought accusations against elliot for criminal harassment,and that she "felt" harassed.
9.guthrie has paid ZERO for her accusations.she has suffered no accountability nor responsibility.

now the court case is over,and elliot has been vindicated and free speech is still in place for today.

but lets look at the bigger picture.
and let us imagine how easily this situation could be abused.
can we really look at guthrie vs elliot as ANY form of justice? or is it MORE liekly that guthrie was abusing a court system to punish a man she happened to disagree with?with ZERO consequences.

now maybe you agree with guthrie.
maybe you are one of those people that believe in your heart that words are weapons and people should be held accountable for those words.they should be stripped of wealth,work and home..they should be punished.

ok.
thats fine.
maybe you agree because it is a matter you support?
a racist pig loses a job for saying racists things.
or a bigot gets kicked out of his apartment for being a bigoted asshole.

but how about this..
hypothetically:
a devout chritian woman is protesting an abortion clinic with her children in tow.

and lets say a pro-choice atheist comes over to her and starts to berate her i front of her children.ridiculing her for her beliefs and saying jesus was a zombie.that she is a horrible person for believing in such a tyrannical deity,that this so-called all-loving entity punishes all no-believers in a lake of fire for all eternity.that as a mother,teaching her children to worship such a god is tantamount to child abuse.berating her so badly that her children begin to cry?

now what if that interaction was filmed?
then posted to youtube?
what if a "social justice warrior" of the religious flavor decided that berating person needed to pay for his words?
what if that person got doxxed?
and the end result was he loses his job (because corporations are notoriously controversy allergic),and maybe his landlord is notified and he is kicked out of his apartment?

would you be ok with all that?
because that is the EXACT same metric that radical social justice warriors use!

and what about false accusations?
you dont even have to be actually offended and /or harassed,you just have to accuse and the rest takes care of itself.

are you ok with that kind of creative abuse?

so when i bring things like this to the forefront and attempt to expose the underlying idiocy.what i just wrote is where i am coming from.

and yes.these radicals and their underhanded tactics need to be exposed and all the attention brought to them the better.

why? because what and how they are behaving is anti-democracy anti-freedom and anti-liberty.

and i am all for debating specific issues,and will gladly do so..with glee,but i will not and cannot respect what the radical elements are doing to an otherwise worthy cause.

and YOU should be calling them out as well.

i know this is long and i probably lost the plot somewhere,but this is very important,becuase it threatens all of us and if we simply ignore these nimrods they will just become even more entrenched,self-righteous and arrogant in their own little bubble worlds.

that bubble needs to be popped,and soon.

anyways.thanks for hanging (if you made it this far)
there will be danishes and punch in the lobby!

Exactly @newtboy...

These people are promising massive violence to defend people who were found guilty of violating the law, who purposely set fire to a forest... "They didn't mean for it to get out of control." Yeah, doesn't matter. I don't understand how they can't comprehend that. How it is an overreach of government to try them via a court of law, found guilty and then sentenced to the minimum?

I like how Fox spins it about how it would be if it were blacks, but I think a better example would be if they were Muslim. If they were Muslim Fox and the Republicans would all be screaming about how they are Radicalized Islamic Terrorist. Trump would undoubtedly be calling for Muslim Americans to be put into Internment Camps "temporarily" "while we can figure out what is going on with these people". He'd then say once we carefully vetted them, we'd let them go, but keep track of them, those we can't vet, we'd kick out... and his supporters would fall over themselves agreeing. They'd be mad at any Democrat or media who doesn't use the term "Radicalized Islamic Terrorist" rather than "Jihadist" or "Radicalized Jihadist".

Yet if somebody called these people for what they are, which is Radicalized Christian Terrorist, they'd blow a gasket. They'd say that their faith has nothing to do with it, though the leader said he was led by God to do this. Or they'd argue that the term can't apply here, and can't apply to the guy who murdered people at the Planned Parenthood clinic. "These people are freedom fighters, not terrorist." They are standing against the oppressive power of the Obama administration, and probably point out his middle name again.

So... we have people, driven by God and faith to promise violence if their political ends aren't met... Sounds like terrorism to me. Oh... and that particular God and faith is Christianity. So Radicalized Christian Terrorism. Pure and simple... unless we need to drop the term Radicalized if this is what Christianity is about now... though I'm fairly sure the Jesus of the Bible would object, then again he'd object to pretty much everything the political right stands for, but that's a rant I've done tons of times here.

Crazy thing is, if the government uses force, then the political right and media will feel justified, and say "see, we are being repressed". They've learned from ISIL and the rest, the best way to radicalize people is to make them fear they are being oppressed. ISIL drives up terror attacks, sold as freedom fighting to their people, which result on people turning against Islam as a whole, which is their publicly stated goal, and when that happens it makes it easier to recruit more and more people to their cause. So Radicalized Christian Terror groups like this are using the same tactics, by forcing situations where they are put down by force. Great recruitment tool, and the brain dead follow lock step into falling for it. ISIL is the bad guy (and they are, no question) and they are the good guy for doing the exact same thing? They are both evil. Both misdirected. Both missing the point we are all in this together. One world. One humanity.

I wish the so called Left Liberal Media would stop calling them militants and start using the term Radicalized Christian Terrorist as that is more apt. Of course they still call Vaccine Deniers and Climate Change Deniers, Skeptics, which they aren't. So no hope for America anytime soon.

@vil

The idea that quote unquote Europeans will ever be a minority in Europe is far-fetched. Certainly not from migration while higher birth rates for migrants tend to subside as they assimilate. People get this impression when migrants are overwhelmingly settled in small towns. By it's nature they form a larger portion of the population. In big cities, naturally they want to at least at first settle within their own ethnic communities. It gives people the impression there are more migrants than there actually are.

There's no doubt that many Muslims are culturally very different to Europeans. They come from poorer countries, with different cultural and historical backgorunds, different value systems etc. I don't have a good answer to how this can be improved but I think it's wrong to think they uniqely do not want to integrate. The incentive is always there to assimilate into working culture and earn what is surely much more than the basic social welfare net the governments provide. But it's unrealistic to expect ethnic neighbourhoods & communities not to develop. Here in Sydney we have separate suburbs known for Indian, Korean, Chinese immigrants respectively. I live in a suburb dominated by Lebanese immigrants (FYI I am a Russian immigrant).

Schengen or not, I still don't see a workable way to actually control the vastness of Europe/M-E borders. Kicking out a country like Greece for letting immigrants through would also have immediate costs. A realistic plan similar to that proposed by Merkel is to more equitably share immigrants so no individual country is overburdened. Kicking members out is hardly going to help that.

Again though, the main point is - you can't feasibly prevent migration or control borders without turning Europe into a police state. While I sympathize with the issues raised, as I said it's about finding the best solution of a difficult and unavoidable situation.

Right wing European politician who tell you otherwise are simply lying and misleading people into believing what they want to hear.

Thought you might appreciate this guys disgust with this piece of equipments assembly. I got a kick out of it and im not even sure just how doggy it is. It sure does look like a mess. https://youtu.be/2o8MDCIlOEk

Oh my god, I don't even know what to say. I loved this picture he made for me, and so did everyone else I shared it with - including my mom, who printed it out and framed it. My son always got a kick out of his shopped images too, and he was about 10 (seven years ago) when I took this picture of him to share with schmawy.

I regret losing contact with him years ago, and now it's too late. You are definitely missed, brother. Rest in peace.

I make reasonable allowances for what I will call a hero, I never made allowances for what's a legal right. I think one need not exercise one's rights in the most disruptive way possible to exorcize them. That said, if the restaurant owner in your scenario doesn't want to kick out open carry people for scaring 'families', that should be their right too, and then they're (the owner and the carrier) both slightly heroic.

In this case, if he's doing nothing illegal, the cops should go do something productive, not get violent because someone is guilty of contempt of cop, which is not a crime. They always say they're understaffed and there's too much crime to deal with, then why are 2 cops wasting so much time on someone legally not answering their questions or producing ID AND NOTHING ELSE WRONG? That seems impractical in the extreme.

There is a HUGE difference between behavior that, while allowed, is bound to scare some people and/or cause panic and behavior that simply annoys a public servant who's abusing their authority in the first place, not actually doing their job. No one can reasonably be afraid for their life of someone that won't answer their questions, nor is it a crime. No crowd has ever run in panic because a mime (or group of mimes) walked into it's midst....maybe in disgust, but not panic.

It is always appropriate, practical, socially accepted, and constructive to your life to tell any officer that you won't answer any question at all (including 'what's your name' if that's legal in your state) without written blanket immunity from the DA, notarized and codified by a judge, for any and all crimes you may have committed or may be committing...and not a word more without a good lawyer present. That's the advice both my father's and brother's high priced lawyers gave me, I'll take it.

SFOGuy,

I like the way you operate.

Hmm... I'll need to see if Almighty YouTube has videos of young kids getting a kick out of this product.

My older son has had a good laugh telling me that it's "raining farts" lately. Maybe this could be a farting tool...