In a perfect world, yes, but in reality, no.
Police do not have to tell the truth, and if a lie gets them the upper hand, they'll often lie. Asking them to explain your rights, especially after annoying them by being obstinate and repeating to them that you know your rights, is just dumb imo. They have no obligation to teach you or to be honest about them and every incentive not to.....although it would be nice if they did.

Edit: asking for a lengthy explanation after being told 'any answer besides"yes" is considered refusal' is a point where you will be penalized for asking what your rights are....white, black, or purple.

Explain how it's ok to administer a test at any time but this time is harassment because he failed them, please, because that's contradictory.

He parked on the freeway causing suspicion,
admitted to drinking and driving requiring a field test,
didn't follow directions so failed the field test,
then obstinately repeated that with the breathalyzer by not answering yes and taking it. (After being told anything but yes legally means no).
Please, what's harassment there?....because there's definitely something more imo.

Remove race from the equation, and it's a good arrest. Adding race in does nothing to negate that imo.


Edit: I was a white punk with a long Mohawk. I got harassed far worse than this repeatedly, including being thrown to the ground at gunpoint because an officer read my plate wrong and accused me of being a car thief. Attitude usually has far more to do with the outcome than anything else in my experience. When I was polite and followed instructions I almost always walked, even when in the wrong. When I argued, I got slapped hard, like a vandalism charge for a 4" chalk line on a sidewalk or 2 hours of having my car searched in front of my friends house.

If I'm misunderstanding and you aren't claiming this was a dwb arrest, apologies. That's the part I'm debating, because it seems wrong.

Brings to mind the Palestinian teenager getting 8 months for slapping a soldier while a different soldier gets 10 months for shooting an unarmed teenager on the ground and killing him. Wildly different crimes, same sentence.

No, you miss the point.
Distinctions are important.
It matters hugely, recognizing the difference between violent rape and an uninvited shoulder rub, just as it matters making the distinction between a spanking and attempted murder....not just legally but rationally.

I wholeheartedly disagree that making those distinctions about gradients of wrongness in any way denies the ability to see that both are wrong.....except for the brainless who can't do both.

Public shaming IS a sentence, one that harms your job, finances, family, and future. I have no problem with fair public shaming, but lumping a bad date in with real rapists is as fair as lumping you in with kidnappers and murderers because you slapped a disobedient child's behind.

He denies he did anything to intentionally make her uncomfortable or pressure her, which is what she accuses him of.

NO SIR. THAT IS YOUR POSITION, you said until overboard sentencing becomes a problem, there's no distinction needed between bad sex and forced sex.
Yes, it's not cool, but it's also not abuse unless it is.

If, like this woman, she #metoo'd that you were an octopus that ignored all her nonverbal signals to stop, your denial wouldn't mean much, and most people would just call you a rapist....just like his denial means nothing to you and you're more than willing to let him be lumped in with rapists and abusers.

You lumped them together in your post about how making distinctions is out of fashion. It's like you said stop eating broccoli, sugar, and bacon, then balked when I said broccoli is good for you, you only meant deep fried candied broccoli. Come on.

Don't expect me to read what you mean and ignore what you write...I absolutely hate that.
Don't be sexually aggressive...do be weird.

Yes, distinctions matter immensely.

No, grading offences is proper, otherwise you put rape and going Dutch on a date at the same level because they both upset the date.

If the person goes on a long date with you, accepts an invitation to your bed, undressed and engages in sex, asks you to slow down a bit (which means continue, slower, which you do), and continues, sleeps over, and only later complains, maybe relationships aren't for HER. Her date did absolutely nothing wrong. Verbal cues trump non verbal cues in the dark 99.9999999% of the time....pretty much any time there's no gun to your head.

Thanks for always having my back. I see SNL has reposted it. They hardly ever cancel a posting. [I thought Ty Cobb slapped a lawsuit on them]

I was on a flight where a woman acted out like this in first class. After slapping a stewardess a marshal pinned her down then they duct taped her to the seat. Strange enough when things calmed down the marshal held a glass of wine and allowed her to sip it down and she slept for the last 3 hours of the flight.

You're actually calling the Democrats in congress obstructionists? I'm reasonably certain we have as many federal vacancies as we do largely due to the Republican congress of the past several years doing their damnedest to block every single thing Obama tried to get done. That accusation is phenomenally hypocritical. I certainly acknowledge the current congressional Democrats have been voting no or voting to not proceed quite a bit lately, but they've also been cut off from the process of lawmaking to the highest degree possible. You can't expect cooperation from people that you don't even let sit at the table while laws are being drafted and discussed.

That last word was a joke of course - there's been damn near no discussion of this bill. The last time the United States had a major tax overhaul was also under republican oversight, in 1986. During the course of creating that legislation they took over 6 months and had more than a dozen hearings on it, ensuring reasonable transparency. This latest bill was slapped together over a few weeks and had a completely opaque process.

You claim the Democrats "fucked Americans" because they added 8 trillion to the debt. My understanding is this bill, over the next 10 years, will add a minimum of another trillion. The fact that it's so negative overall will also, due to existing law, require a balancing by way of cutting other programs - Medicaid at the least is expected to see major cuts, just as a side effect of this bill. Of course, it isn't really a side effect per se, they just couldn't get enough R votes if they either made the necessary changes to keep the bill deficit-neutral or included the provision that would've waived the mandatory cuts. So it's laughable to claim the current Republicans in congress really have an interest in being fiscally conservative or even moderate.

I'm likely wasting my time here though, as I don't think you're actually interested in engaging in an honest conversation, nor do you seem to be open to changing your viewpoint at all. I wonder though whether you know enough about politics from the last several decades to have a guess as what Republicans from the Reagan era would think about how things are being done today. My guess is they'd be appalled, but perhaps I'm overestimating them.

Although the oozing fetid abscess that is institutionalized sexual harassment has needed a good draining for a long, long time, anyone else suspect once they wash this all away with Righteous Indignation (tm) and slap a rainbow bandaid on it, it will just start to fill up again?

I still think the Koeniggseggsggegsneggsgg looks like a soulless blob of playdough. Pay that much? You should get at least a slap dash attempt at sexy.

Your video, Slap Fight, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

When you're talking about something that clearly skews the stats, like hyper religious people thinking divorce is totally a slap at God, that's not confirmation bias, it's statistics.

It's also evidence that it is a better way of life, but that is something you apparently refuse to consider. That is why I am calling confirmation bias.

Do you feel the same about those who imprison women, force their silence with abuse, and treat them like abused pets because their religion says that's proper? What if they're Christians?

The bible says that husbands should lay down their lives for their wives, like Christ loved the church and died for it.

What say you about those God has chosen to be non believers? According to you, God created them with no purpose besides eternal torture in hell, because according to you they have no alternative since God never revealed himself to them so heaven is barred to them. Pretty fucked up God imo. I prefer Mt (Mot, Mewt, etc). He's older than Yahweh and far more honest and stable.

It's not that God wouldn't reveal Himself to them; a lot of ex-christian atheists simply inherited the faith of their parents, and when they got turned loose in the world, they fell away because they didn't really know God. They need to have their own faith that is wholly theirs. No one can make you or by proxy give your life to Christ. That is a decision each individual person has to come to on their own.

When you're talking about something that clearly skews the stats, like hyper religious people thinking divorce is totally a slap at God, that's not confirmation bias, it's statistics.

Do you feel the same about those who imprison women, force their silence with abuse, and treat them like abused pets because their religion says that's proper? What if they're Christians?

What say you about those God has chosen to be non believers? According to you, God created them with no purpose besides eternal torture in hell, because according to you they have no alternative since God never revealed himself to them so heaven is barred to them. Pretty fucked up God imo. I prefer Mt (Mot, Mewt, etc). He's older than Yahweh and far more honest and stable.

Brochu has now been kicked out of school and the "Police Department said it would be requesting that Brochu be slapped with a felony charge of intimidation based on bigotry or bias," in addition to the two misdemeanor charges already filed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/brianna-brochu-hartford.html?_r=0

Fantastic! Now hurry up and slap a Nazi uniform on it so I can murder hundreds of him in imaginatively graphic ways.

So, that's zero Nazi rallies then...and I doubt you can name a single one of these peaceful KKK rallies, because those rallies are never peaceful.

Bob, you don't get to decide who can be a citizen any more than I do, fortunately. Antifa may be misguided thugs, but the right trying to dehumanize them does nothing but embolden them.

Trump is not coherent enough to be fascist, but many things he's said are fascist, as are many of his supporters. Don't try to deny it, the unite the right march was replete with shields bearing fasces.

Now, I have to chastise you for horrible reading comprehension, intentional or not. Every time I mention antifa, I denounce them and call them fascist morons, yet you still somehow lump me with them in your mind. I sincerely hope this is an intentional misdirection, as the alternative, that you honestly can't grasp that someone left of you isn't in antifa and blm (because I know that in your head they're the same thing), is incredibly sad.

Agreed, the police seem to be taking a 'wait and see what happens' approach here, I can't fathom why, but that wasn't their tactic under Obama. When antifa attacked in Berkely the first time, the cops were on them like white on rice and they dispersed...what happened.

Again with this...me and my kind with me violence. *snicker* Me and my kind don't do silly sign slapping and shouting violence, our kind of violence wakes you up at 3 am standing at the foot of your bed in a Trump mask. ;-) I ain't with those millennials throwing tantrums, they aren't anti fascist, they are fascist....and dumb. Try as you might, you won't put me in their camp, or them in mine.

With his support at all time record lows for a president, I don't know where you get this idea beyond wishful thinking. Antifa makes Trump voters? No more than Nazis and the KKK make anti Trump voters. Which crowds are larger? Good luck with that....maybe you can convince the Dems to try Clinton again...you'll need it.