@harlequinn

i have witnessed many of my more right leaning friends on social media ask a very similar question,but ignore that the attorney general is first,and foremost,an agent of the court.

sally yates did nothing illegal.she simply was upholding a lawful injunction passed down from ninth circuit court federal judge william orrick.(who is a republican,for what it is worth).

what yates DID do was ignore an executive order commanding her to challenge the injunction,which she refused and told her subordinates to do the same.which is considered gross insubordination,and the reason she was fired,but she had every right and legal cover to ignore that EO.

the DOJ,and subsequently the attorney general,are not their for the presidents leisure.they are part of the judiciary branch,which is separate from the executive.though every president has replaced the current attorney general with one that most aligns with their politics.

the fact that so many diehard rightwingers see what yates did as anti-patriotic is a stance that i find very disturbing.that somehow by disobeying the president,she crossed some imaginary line,and therefore should be punished for her disobedience.

which she was! she was fired.

but to imply that disobeying an executive order is tantamount to treason,goes against the very ideology of our constitutional republic.the president is not KING.he does not wield absolute power.

and to pretend what yates did as illegal,and treasonous, for disobeying the president.... is fascism 101.

No it's not. He demanded she get out of the car. After disobeying his lawful command he informed her he was going home and that she had a choice to stay in or get out. If she chose to stay it would not be kidnapping.

@bcglorf
i feel i have to ask you a question,and i feel quite foolish for not thinking of asking it before.

i do not ask this snidely,or with any disrespect.

are you a neo-conservative?

because this "If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you."

is almost verbatim the counter argument that was published,ad nauseum,in the weekly standard.which is a neo-conservative publication.edited by bill-the bloody-kristol.

and it would also explain why we sometimes just simply cannot agree on some issues.

ok,let's unpack your comment above that quoted.i won;t address the rest of your comment,not because i find it unworthy,it is simply a reiteration of your original argument,which we have addressed already.

so...
you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.

ok,i disagree,but the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012 actually agree with you and give the president cover to deem an american citizen an "enemy combatant".however,the region where this "enemy combatant" is not the deciding factor,though many have tried to make a different case,the simple fact is that the president CAN deem you an "enemy combatant' and CAN order your assassination by drone,or seal team or any military outlet,or spec-ops...regardless of where you are at that moment.

now you attempt to justify this order of death by "The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military."

if THIS were a true statement,and the ONLY avenue left was for a drone strike.then how do you explain how this man was able to:foment dissent,organize in such a large capacity to incite others to violence and co-ordinate on such an impressive scale?

anwars al awlaki went to yemen to find refuge..yes,this is true.
but a btter qustion is:was the yemeni government being unreasonable and un-co-operative to a point where legal extradition was no longer a viable option?

well,when we look at what the state department was attempting to do and the yemeni response,which was simply:provide evidence that anwars al awlaki has perpetrated a terrorist attack,and we will release him.it is not like they,and the US government,didn't know where he lived.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.

and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

in fact,some people forget that in the days after 9/11 osama actually denied having anything to do with 9/11,though he praised the act.

so here we have the US on one hand.with the largest military on the planet,the largest and most encompassing surveillance system.so vast the stasi would be green with envy.a country whose military and intelligence apparatus is so massive and vast that we pay other countries to house black sites.so when t he president states "america does not torture",he is not lying,we pay OTHER people to torture.

so when i see the counter argument that the US simply cannot adhere to international laws,nevermind their OWN laws,because they cannot "get" their guy.

is bullshit.

it's not that they cannot "find" nor "get" their target.the simple fact is that a sovereign nation has decided to disobey it's master and defy the US.so the US defies international treaties and laws and simply sends in a drone and missiles that fucker down.

mission accomplished.

but lets ask another question.
when do you stop being an american citizen?
at what point do you lose all rights as a citizen?
do we use cell phone coverage as a metric?
the obedience of the country in question?

i am just being a smart ass right now,because the point is moot.
the president can deem me an "enemy combatant" and if he so chose,send a drone to target my house,and he would have the legal protection to have done so.

and considering just how critical i am,and have been,of bush,obama and both the republican and democrats.

it would not be a hard job for the US state department and department of justice to make a case that i was a hardline radical dissident,who was inciting violence and stirring up hatred in people towards the US government,and even though i have never engaged in terrorism,nor engaged in violence against the state.

all they would need to do is link me with ONE person who did happen to perpetrate violence and slap the blame on me.

i wonder if that would be the point where you might..maybe..begin to question the validity of stripping an american citizen of their rights,and outright have them executed.

because that is what is on the line right now.
and i am sorry but "he spoke nasty things about us,and some of those terrorists listened to him,and he praised violence against us".

the argument might as well be:enoch hurt our feelings.

tell ya what.
let's use the same metric that you are using:
that awlaki incited violence and there were deaths directly due to his words.

in 2008 jim david akinsson walked into a unitarian church in tennesee and shot and killed two people,and wounded seven others.

akinsson was ex military and had a rabid hatred of liberals,democrats and homosexuals.

he also happened to own every book by sean hannity,and was an avid watcher of FOX news.akinsson claimed that hannity and his show had convinced him that thsoe dirty liberals were ruining his country,and he targeted the unitarian church because it "was against god".

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

because,again using YOUR logic,yes..yes we do.

i am trying my best to get you to reconsider your position,because..in my opinion...on an elementary moral scale..to strip someone of their rights due to words,praise and/or support..and then to have them executed without due process,or have at least the ability to defend themselves.

is wrong.

i realize i am simply making the same argument,but using different examples.which is why i asked,sincerely,if you were a neo-conservative.

because they believe strongly that the power and authority of the american empire is absolute.they are of the mind that "might makes right",and that they have a legal,and moral,obligation to expand americas interest,be it financial or industrial,and to use the worlds largest military in order to achieve those goals.they also are of the belief that the best defense is the best offense,and to protect the empire by any means necessary.(usually military).

which is pretty reflective of our conversations,and indicative of where our disagreements lie.

i dunno,but i suspect that i have not,nor will i,change your position on this matter.

but i tried dude...i really did try.

Oh certainly, there are definitely glaring flaws with Rogue One.

The biggest problem for me was how every character conveniently dies IMMEDIATELY as soon as their narrative purpose is done with. And strangely, every character seems completely ready to die in a way that makes the deaths fairly laughable.

Saw: "I'm gonna stare out this window and not even try to escape."

Bodhi: "I'm gonna close my eyes and not even try to toss that thermal detonator back out of the shuttle."

Baze: "Welp, my best friend is dead so I'm just going to Leroy Jenkins those Deathtroopers."

They missed major dramatic opportunities for each character death. Think "Saving Private Ryan" where each character death is meaningful. Caparzo disobeys a command to do something decent and gets himself killed. Wade dies because Tom Hanks wanted to do the right thing and clear the machine gun nest. Fish dies because Upham is too cowardly to climb the steps and fight. And none of those guys resigned themselves to death--they all wanted desperately to live.

A couple of other things that bothered me about Rogue One:

Why did Admiral Raddus take Princess Leia--a Galactic Senators daughter--into a major battle with the Empire, one which most Rebels were convinced was a trap designed to draw out the fleet?

Why didn't Vader just Force pull the Death Star plans out of the escaping rebels before massacring them all?

Why did the Death Star "miss" Scarif base and hit the ocean instead despite them showing it had pinpoint accuracy when blowing up Jedha?

All that being said, TFA disappointed me big time. It was just trying waaaaaaaay too hard to evoke the original trilogy. If I wanted to watch the original trilogy again I'd, you know, watch the original trilogy. And don't even get me started on Kylo Ren. I haven't wanted to punch a character in the face so hard since whiny Anakin from Attack of the Clones.

EDIT: To keep this on topic, I'm annoyed that Plinket didn't point out the actual flaws in the movie and instead focused on the "they didn't explain the Force" bullshit.

Look, democrats are obstructionist, sure, but what you're saying is that a guy who speeds to get to work is as bad as a drunk driver who speeds through school zones because they're both basically just disobeying traffic laws. There's a world of difference and conflating the two is simply inappropriate.

I notice from your sentence length, grammar, and use of buzz phrases that you don't have an especially good grasp on any of this, so I'll leave it at that. Add in your aversion to actually being forced to think about your positions and I know all I need to about you.

If you'd paid any attention to me, you wouldn't have made any of the obvious factual mistakes you have here, so it's apparent there's no means of getting through to you, except, perhaps, life experience and/or more education than you have at the moment (though I suspect you'd reject that too).

What? No arrest? Booooooooooooo... so much for arresting anyne who disobey the driving ban.

Cop apologist. As if being stupid is some justification for being beaten down like this. People are considered stupid for a reason. Doesn't mean they deserve this abhorrent type treatment from those who are suppose to serve and protect and be better then that. Shes an idiot and he deserves the most extreme vigilante justice for being a cunt of the worst kind. *angry*

We get all, you should have known better(sanctimonious) when its someone you don't know but if this was your child, there is no way you would be telling your kid, your disfigured crushed face is justice for your immature behavior.

-edit-
At what age is it appropriate to hit your/a child for disobeying or rebelling in some way against you as an elder, adult or parent.

Indecency is as much a ludicrous taboo as mountain-blasphemy.

Disobeying the demands of a bunch of superstitious tribals isn't ignorance; it's moral, cultural and frankly genetic superiority.

I think more people need to be taught to ignore cops when they "ask" you to do something, but not when they give a legal command.
The problem is they know what they can and can't command you to do, and how to frame their 'commands' as questions, like "I'm going to handcuff you and put you in my car for your and my safety....OK?" That's a question, not a command, the answer is "NO, I want my lawyer" and/or "I do not waive ANY of my rights for your convenience or safety". (really, I always want to reply "OK, but first I'm going to take and hold your gun and handcuff/car keys for my and your safety, OK?") Most cops would completely lose their shit at that, and call it 'disobeying a command', but conversely, in court they would say it was a 'request' not a command, because they know they had no right to command a person to submit to confinement with out a charge being made/crime being investigated. They can't hold you while they try to decide IF a crime even happened, only if they have reason to believe YOU committed/are committing a crime.
If the sentence starts with "can you", "will you", "may I", "can I", or ends with "OK?", "alright?", or just the inflection indicating "?", it's a request or question, not a command, no matter how commandingly they say it, and should not be confused with a command (like they hope you will) but instead should be completely ignored.
That is the disingenuous/dishonest manner is which they typically operate, and why you should never say a word to them. It never helps and can only hurt you in the end. They aren't trying to be your friend or just friendly, they're trying to find/make up something to charge you with.

Well, it appears to me that there has to be a better way of handling things than that two-striper decided.

I do know that people complain when outsiders crash their 'territory'.

I thought most of the black kids did do as they were told, which was to sit on the ground. Some of the black girls got mouthy or something which led to physical force.

Too many people now are being taught to disobey the cops, so the verbal escalates to the physical and everyone loses. White people do it too..."I know my constitutional rights!" etc etc etc

And Genji, I don't know if Bob was being racist to you, I'm sure you'll be the arbiter of that, regardless. If Bob wasn't being racist, then I'm sure you'll find someone who will, or has, or will be.

Bottom line is, the cop was suspended because he made a bad situation worse. The other cops don't like that shit either because they have to deal with it too.

But I'm not going to paint all cops as racist just because one might be, as opposed to you guys, who like to paint all cops as racist, just as I don't consider all black people to be troublemakers, just because a few are.

Also, not all black people consider themselves victims as GK does.

Update: the officer who pulled the gun has resigned.

I think it's more like if they would stop redistributing the wealth to themselves from their workers.

If they would stop being greedy f'tards, then more people would have money to buy the things that move the economy and nobody would need government aid in the form of food stamps and welfare (save those who are honestly mentally or physically unable to work).If you want to build an economy the keyword is "build". You don't build a house by building the attic first magically floating there, then the foundation and walls to get up to it, you start with a foundation, then walls. If the people at the bottom have money to do more than barely survive, they buy things that actually move the economy, they buy things at retailers, who need to hire more people; those people buy things which results in transportation and warehouses hiring more people, those people buy things; manufacturing starts hiring (if the rich f'tard didn't send those jobs overseas, which the conservatives blame on the government rather than the rich guy who sent the job overseas for some reason, it's not like the price of that shirt went down when they sent it overseas, they just pocketed the extra wealth for themselves) and those people buy even more expensive things.

Our right wing economy favors investors and large business over the needs of the vast majority. It doesn't matter how much GM stock investors buy and trade, GM won't make more cars and hire more people until enough people can buy cars.

As we slide more and more money from the people who actually spend money in the economy and make it move, to people who just horde and invest, the economy will continue to spiral down. More and more people will require food stamps and welfare due to the actions of the rich, but the conservative right will blame the workers and former workers rather than pushing blame onto the people who are refusing to pay living wages, who push jobs overseas so they can personally pocket more wealth, and complain about the people they aren't giving living wages to and the people they laid off need government assistance, and the conservative voters go right along because the pulpit and Fox News has brainwashed them into believing that a party that disobey's everything their Jesus taught them is the Christian party.

The growing wealth and income gap is the biggest challenge facing our nation, and indeed much of the world. Of course most of the rest of the world does a better job of caring for the work force than the US does, paid maternity leave in all but 4 nations, paid vacation time in most of the world by law, paid sick time in most developed economies, minimum wages tied to inflation in much of those countries, a minimum level of health insurance for every man woman and child without having to buy from for-profit corporations (most actually use a single payer, which sort of ignores the fact that our individual mandate that we have now was invented by the Republican party, and is financed the same way they wanted to do it and the tax penalty for not participating is the same...the other nations that use individual mandates do so via not-for-profit insurance)... We do so much to protect the rich and investor class in this nation... sickening really.

Grabbing at the officers gun would be immediate grounds for immediate use of deadly force, but once the suspect retreats and is no longer within reach of the officer those grounds have evaporated. The officer should afterwards be wary, but not act as if they are still in danger when the danger ended long before and now they are simply being disobeyed. That's not a legitimate reason for deadly force.
These 'witnesses' that corroborate the officers story are phantoms at best. No one has publicly come forward that corroborates his story that was actually there, all the known witnesses actually contradict the officers account and state that he was retreating, being shot at, flinched, turned, stumbled forward while raising his arms/grasping his sides and was shot another 5-6 times as he fell, including (according to the autopsy) once in the top of the head that exited through his eye...it's hard to see how he could both be a threat and in a position where he could be shot that way. I think if this was a citizen shooting, they would call that 'execution style'.
Attaching the statement of a single person or small group to an entire race is not only racist, it's simply wrong. No group is homogenous, they don't all see this the same way, even if their skin is similar in melanin content.
So, you seem to be saying a taser should only be attempted when the officer is backed up and the suspect is alone with no bystanders. I'll just say I disagree, it should always be the first choice when more than physical hands-on force is needed.
I'm guessing you've never been tazed. The complete incapacitation may stop when you stop the charge, but the residual pain, and the memory of that pain and knowledge that more can come instantly usually does stop even the angriest wanna-be supermen.

Do you know it to be fact that there's nothing more to it, like that they were ordered to disperse and they ignored the order?

It seems to me they were practicing civil disobedience in a place where you are beaten for disobeying.

Then again, they also said those few black kids going to all white schools were idiots too . . . Or those few Indians who stood against British rule . . . Or perhaps those few women who protested and marched until they had the right to vote?

See, the problem with that statement is that many cyclists are actually out there to change the world for what they perceive is a better way of life. Not to mention, they have tons of research on the subject to back up their claims (unlike the situations I cited, which btw, I am well aware are on a totally different level of human abuse).

The issue is of course is you have some die hard cyclists who aren't there to make a statement, but because they're counter-culture. They're hipsters. They're going to run stop signs because "fuck authority" etc. Then again, I've been hit 6 times in my car. Care to guess how many of those were because someone didn't obey a traffic law? That's why we have those rules to begin, to prevent "accidents" from occurring.

As a cyclist-commuter, and as someone who drives thousands of miles as work requires, I say if a cyclist blows through a stop sign and you hit them, their own damned fault.

Many of us, including myself, have petitioned to create a Yield on Stop Under 30 rule. In essence, we have way to many stop signs in this country. This goes for cars as well. And you know you've done it at some point: you come to a stop sign in some part of a housing project and you "California Roll" through it. Or a "Brooklyn Stop." Whatever you want to call it.

But I do know some cyclists who blatantly disobey rules as a fuck you. But as a cyclist who stops at red lights, who stops at stops signs, who checks behind me to see if I can make it easier for a car to pass me, the whole "fuck cyclists" thing tells me exactly what I see on the streets everyday: we don't need cars. Cars create assholes. Cars insulate you from the world around you and the people around you become anonymous boxes of steel that you don't care about. It's a me me me me society.

To that matter, the cycling community here in Orlando is pretty big given our population and disgusting sprawl patterns. The majority of us you'll never notice because we're doing things right. Some of us, you will notice because we are doing things right. When we make a left turn, we get in your way. So would any other vehicle. Are we going too slow? Suck it up. I can't tell you how many times some asshole comes within inches of me trying to speed past me . . . on a 25 MPH road while I'm doing a good 18. We almost always end up at the same stop sign or red light.

So yeah, as you said, the extreme ones are stupid. It goes both ways, as you said. But FYI, the world would be a better place if everyone rode a bike. Just saying.