Yes, and she does "come here", then he lets her get on the bike without telling her not to. It didn't look like an escape attempt to me, but may have to them. That's not the point, the point is they didn't tell her to stay there when she turned around and went back "here". It's clear to me that her problem is being touched by strangers, and had they simply told her to sit, no one would have had to touch her, and things would not have escalated.

Detained is not under arrest, so you can't be charged with resisting detainment. Ignoring the police is totally fine until they give a lawful command....one that doesn't end with "OK?".

Again, you're assuming she was trying to flee and not just being an OCD (ADD?) teenager trying to avoid being touched. That's how she appears to me, spoiled, trouble, disrespectful, yes, but also scared, troubled, confused, and under assault.

I do think they should stop her from fleeing, (if that's what she was trying to do) I just think they should start with "sit down" or "stay right there" before manhandling a child that's just been in an accident, especially if the contention is they are "detaining" her because she might need medical treatment. "Come here" is a command satisfied when she returns "there", it does not command her to stay anywhere, no matter how logical it is to infer that.

As a citizen, you do have the right to arrest her (which they should have done if they thought she was fleeing the scene, not just "detained" her) but you had better be able to totally justify any force you use to hold her...as should the police. The force used must be reasonable, minimal, only what's required to prevent escape, and on par with the crime she's being detained for. They might have 1 out of 4 covered in part if they stretch it.

My issue is far more about the pepper spraying her for not moving her foot rather than the manhandling, but I do think both were wrong and more about disrespect and power trips than trying to calmly handle the accident. ONce she was handcuffed and in the car, she wasn't escaping anything, nor was she a threat to anyone. The pepper spray was totally out of line. The rest is just questionable to me and absolutely not how you make the community support you, but probably not illegal.

But but legal immigrant, not illegal!

Do you get your info from, faux or Trump?
I'm...wow...where to start?
"Neo-liberals" are anti war, so positive peaceful relations are what they're after, not illegal collusion and absolute capitulation to our (and our allies') detriment. The 'neoliberals' didn't even use the military to protect the Ukraine, even though we are bound to do so by treaties.
War profiteering companies are almost 100% owned and run by neocons, not liberals.

There is proof, publicly released proof. There is not yet a completed report submitted to congress, those take time to put together, verify, edit, recertify, sign off, and submit. 17 intelligence agencies have publicly stated they have plenty of 'proof', some hackers have gone on record as working on this project for the Russians at their direction, the methods and programs used have easily identified 'fingerprints' from previous Russian hacks.

The contents of the emails were completely innocuous, with absolutely no smoking gun. If you think differently, I think you've been duped by the fake news industry.
'No one cares' about the RNC emails because the Russians didn't release them, they weren't trying to hurt Trump, he's their dream president, a moron under their thumb that doesn't understand the idea of diplomacy, much less how to practice it. (That no one cares is totally not true, btw, I care...I even care that they were hacked, but I care far more that they were protected and helped repeatedly by a foreign nation they invited to illegally become involved in our election with the clearly stated intention of skewing our election for their benefit).
Sweet zombie Jesus, if Clinton had won after asking a national enemy to illicitly and illegally help her like Trump did, the right would be inconsolable and frothing at the mouth calling for revolution and blood.

But...it's not illegal....at least not on the West coast.....at least until Trump sicks the DEA on us, that is.

It's been pretty clear for decades that the most dangerous things associated with marijuana are the laws that criminalize it.

So, HRC and DWS have now handed Trump the presidency by improperly if not illegally handing Clinton the nomination.
This, as much as anything else, means most Sanders supporters won't be supporting the one's who cheated them out of a nomination worth voting for.
This also plays right into the Republican narrative of 'crooked Hillary', and is top notch ammunition for them to use to get their supporters to the polls in November....not that they ever tried to court Sanders supporters, they actually made more effort to court Republicans turned off by Trump...and that speaks volumes. She's closer to their politics than his.
Thanks a shitload DNC. You've effectively ended our country by not being a better choice than Trump.
One silver lining....Americans will finally be getting the government we deserve...and it's one that will destroy us.

In a perfect world, or if average people were reasonable, yes, I would make it OK to decide for themselves. Sadly they aren't, so we've legislated what's unacceptable to discriminate over.
I do support the legal protections based on race, sex, sexual orientation, and/or religion (or lack thereof)...but I don't think there's protection against refusal of service based on one's political affiliation (maybe I'm wrong). I think it's stupid to do that....it harms the business and is not conducive to civilized behavior, but yes, I think business owners that don't contract with the government in any way, never take public money, and pay all their taxes should be able to refuse service for legitimate personal reasons that don't violate those protections.
Yes, I understand there would be abuses. That's part of the price of living in a "free" society.

EDIT: The alternative is, when a NAMBLA member comes to the shop and orders 100 shirts advocating adults having sex with children, they would have to make them because ADVOCATING for child sex is not illegal, just incredibly distasteful, right?

To address your points

"Did you even read the article I linked?"
Sorry, I didn't. I opened it, but I really don't have time to read a 40-page law review article.

"In other words, you're flat out wrong when you say the 2nd amendment wasn't about self-defense".
Ok, we can agree to disagree there, but the point still stands that the statement "The WHOLE point of the second amendment... is so we can defend ourselves" (emphasis mine) is incorrect. I'll grant you it might be PART of it.

"I'm not sure why your tone is so dismissive in this thread."
Because I'm tired of trying to convince Americans to stop murdering each other.

"you're quite lucky to live in a country where your government protects you from growing your own food by throwing all those dangerous gardeners in prison. "
Please tell me you realise that's satire because your tone kinda makes me think you're taking that seriously. No, gardens are not illegal in NZ. Almost everyone I know grows some of their own food (at least, those of us lucky enough to afford a house with a garden).

"New Zealand has a shit-ton of guns (about one for every four people)"
Agreed. I even previously brought this up myself.

"people own them for a variety of reasons, from sport"
I know, I have friends who target shoot and hunt

"to self-defense"
cue wrong buzzer sound effect.

To get a gun in NZ you need a Firearms licence. To get this , you will be interviewed, and

You will have difficulty being deemed 'fit and proper' to possess or use firearms if you have:
...
indicated an intent to use a firearm for self-defence.

Have some people (shock, horror) lied to the cops to get a licence? Probably, but in general, no-one here actually wants a gun for self-defense.

Look, I have no problem with people using guns. I just think that maybe you could all stop fetishising them so much and realise that you live in the 21st century and not the old west.

Personally, I'm with Jim Jeffries on this one.
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Jim-Jefferies-on-gun-control

On the other hand, saying YOU ARE INCORRECT does not a counterpoint make. There is absolutely nothing you offer up to support that the majority of feminists make derogatory and often illegal statements about men. There are millions of feminists, and your anecdotal experience doesn't do anything to top anyone else's. You. Have. Nothing.

Secondly, your little shouty pout at me could have been avoided if you read even part of my superbly formatted post. I explicitly wrote that we as a group have an easier time of taking inflammatory comments . Not illegal comments, not rape threats, not rape. Most men (not you) can shrug off an inflammatory comment without needing an MRA support group.

In fact - go back and read my statement and admit that I was talking about inflammatory comments, not rape. Do it. I've never made light of rape and I never intend to, and I don't want your weasely lying post implying that I have. Go back. Read my post. Admit your mistake. I can take an insult, but not a disgusting lie.

First of all, statistics aren't a game Not all of the internet is about being a tough guy winner, and sometimes some of us are just trying to explain ourselves.

Secondly, I'm not giving you links because I like links, but because I like sources. Not all sources are equal. A blog post by a conservative think tank employee and right wing activist isn't as neutral as the CDC or the US Census. Nothing is 100% 'neutral', but numbers gathered by the Labor Department are a little more transparent than a blog post by Christina Hoff Sommers. Say what you will about her, but her agenda is always very clear.

Thirdly, can you clarify your point about illegal discrimination? I don't think anybody talked about illegal discrimination, just the actual wage gap. Illegal discrimination is not necessary to establish oppression - nobody is illegally preventing women from becoming president, but we still have a historic gender gap in the oval office. Things can be shitty and in need of change even if it nothing currently illegal is going on (like the pew research polling you linked to shows). Illiteracy, for example, is a shitty phenomenon for citizens and bad for democracy, but it's not illegal; the wage gap is bad for citizens and for democracy, even when it is not illegal.

Fourthly, if you are willing to accept that there's a pervasive and destructive culture of rape of women by men outside of prison, I will also concede that there's a pervasive and destructive culture of rape of men by men in prison. In fact, I'll go ahead and concede that anyway. Which is fucking awful, but doesn't mean that feminists are wrong for railing against the situation outside of prison. The are two different sectors of society, and the factors that create a rape culture in one sector do not apply so much in the other. Still awful though.

fifthly, you ended on some stuff which might just have been random thoughts, because I don't see how they fit in anywhere:

"[the existence of self-perpetuating unjust power structures] does not automatically equate to men getting a free ride" - was not said by me, ever. We should get rid of injustice even if not all men get a free ride, I think

"in fact i would posit that this obnoxious behavior works against the very thing they are trying to convey" - can be said about all sorts of uppity oppressed groups

"this woman has received death threats and threats of physical violence from other feminists!" - doesn't make her right, and it doesn't make her wrong, and it doesn't 'ruin' all of feminism.

"at the end of the day this is actually a human issue,and a valid one and we all have a right to our own opinion,but not a right to impose it upon another. feel free to disagree." ...nobody can disagree with this because it means nothing. It's a Hallmark card. I tried to give you actual facts and you countered with "we are all humans so everything is like, always a human issue and like, opinions, man."

Well, yes, that's possible but not likely, to hold that theory you must assume the people running it are both 1)100% tolerant of antagonistic racist behavior and 2)liars. I'll give them the benefit of a doubt that they didn't bow to perceived possible future pressure and actually found this personally disgusting. That's not a stretch for most. It's also quite possible they saw it as a potential internal lawsuit they were nipping in the bud.

I asked about his rights...I asked..."does he have a right to his job?" The answer is no.

Ahhh, but it's not illegal to ADVOCATE for having sex with children, only to actually HAVE sex with children. What would you arrest him for?

'intent to harm'? Certainly not. For pedophiles, they don't think having sex with children is harmful to them, so there's no intent to harm. On the other hand, the racist DID intend to harm (intentional infliction of emotional distress is a crime in many places) those he ridiculed, he just isn't very good at it.

Advocating for legalization of something is not the same as advocating people doing it illegally....so no.

If the company has a strict 100% no drug policy, yes. I hate those kinds of policies, but I do see that private companies have the right to hire people they trust, and if using drugs makes them lose that trust in a person, they can fire them...for any stupid thing really.

I'm pretty sure we have laws protecting people from being fired based on political affiliation...so no.

Again, I never said it was justice. I said it's reality. I actually mentioned that I think it's overboard that he's essentially unemployable now, but also mentioned that he could get a job with Trump, or any number of other employees that don't have a problem with his racism. Being fired for ridiculing random strangers for being non-white and therefore on welfare...well, that's poetic justice at least, if not pure justice. Poetic justice is a form of justice...so yes.

Companies have every right to not employ grotesque and offensive people. Don't you think?

Again...intentional infliction of emotional distress...that's harm. Not physical harm, but harm none the less. You may disagree, but you're disagreeing with the law and supreme court, not me.

They were no threat to his livelihood, he's not a fracker, he's in construction.


When is it OK to hold them to company policy? When they are making public, recorded, unambiguous, inapropriate statements and actions. The company draws the line, the company decides where, the company enforces it. If this were due to an outside influence, I would think differently, but because the company itself wrote how disgusted they are and that they have a zero tolerance policy for this...it's fine. He's not just a racist bastard off work...if they have a single person of color working for them, they just saved themselves from a HUGE lawsuit for allowing a hostile work environment.

Yes, the courts have said they have that right.

Again...no PC police here, just his company bosses that were outraged and disgusted with him...and they fired him. This is not new, or strange in any way. It happens hundreds of times daily.

Why? Because we have decided that firing/denying service to someone based on their (or your) religion is not acceptable, and codified that in law. Racists have no such protection, either by society or the law.

yes, I can look at the entire situation and see that some justice was served. I can also look to the future and see that it likely will be over served....but not necessarily. He just needs to apply to the Trump campaign, they love this kind of person, then it will be pure justice.

Look to the past. This 'moral calculus' has been in effect and in use for decades. I find it disturbing that you only get upset about it when it's applied to racist douchebags...he's insanely far from the first one.

Once again...NO PC POLICE HERE. Why don't you get it? Come on man...please...just GET IT. This is a private companies sole action...not bowing to PC police...the PC police didn't have time to find out where he worked and complain, the company saw it and said 'Aww HELL no!".

I would also rather keep my liberty and freedoms...like the liberty and freedom to hire people that share my level of civility, and display that at all times, not only while being paid. Fortunately for me, that's what the law says today...but if people thinking like you have your way, that liberty and freedom will be lost and companies will be forced to hire and not fire disgusting pieces of racist shit like this...because people that think like you are can't fathom that his job found this disgusting, you've decided it MUST have been the PC thugs (or fear of them) that forced his job to fire him, PC thugs that must be fought, so you're fighting. To me, that's just sad, and incredibly poorly thought through or understood...and a bit like seeing racism where it doesn't exist.

You have your liberty and freedom to do as you wish...there was NEVER the freedom to do what you wished AND HAVE NO CONSEQUENSE FOR YOUR ACTIONS. That's what you're advocating. This isn't about a law, it's a private company's private decision...no right has been removed, you have the right to be as disgusting as you wish, you don't have a right to force yourself into a job.

In short, this is his (non existent) right to keep his job VS his bosses right to fire him. The right right won out.

EDIT: It seems you two have not considered the possibility that the company might be owned by a black person.

I've been out of town, or I would have seen and commented sooner.

I like this guy SO MUCH.

To me, everything he says is straightforward commonsense.

Is there some part of this that confuses you, @eric3579?

To restate -- it is not illegal to be rude.

It is rude to be rude.

ha.

So I guess people like Rosa Parks were also tools? Perhaps Alice Paul was a tool for standing up for the rights of women to vote? I suppose Mahatma Gandhi was a tool for resisting British oppression and rule?

This is what you cannot seem to grasp, although I will try in the most basic method to explain it to you. Rights = GOOD, Oppression = BAD. Now, what does this mean? It means you have rights that are expected to be yours in a civilized society.

For instance, lets say you were Hispanic and in Arizona. Due to the fact that the Supreme Court allowed portions of SB1070, the 'paper's, please' law to remain in effect, you can be forced as a Hispanic to provide clear proof that you are a citizen in any situation as long as the officer has a reason to suspect that you might be an illegal immigrant.

The reasonable suspicion is entirely at the discretion of the officer, an individual who is not in any way psychic or specifically trained to spot 'illegal immigrants'. So let's say you are wearing a shirt that says Viva La Raza, just a saying that means you are proud of your race. If I was an officer, I could claim that you wearing a shirt with Spanish on it and being Hispanic could mean that you are illegally here. Ludicrous, I know, but I could claim it and get away with it the way the law is worded. I could stop you in the middle of the sidewalk, force you to submit to an ID request, and question you at the bare minimum. I could say a bulge in your pocket looked like drug paraphernalia and that you smelled of drugs, leading to a body search.

Now let me ask you, even if you were perfectly innocent, had no drugs, were not illegal, and were minding your own business, would this not piss you off? Assuming it didn't that one time, would you get pissed off when it happened over and over?

Look, I'm Caucasian and a male, and even I know that stuff like this is horseshit. At a certain point, if you don't stand up or support the ones who do, then when they come for you there won't be anyone left to help.

If you can't get the point and still feel the way you say, I feel sorry for you. Thankfully others do and even though you think they are tools, they will take the fall so you can continue to live your delusions.

They are not illegal. Its just illegal to publish videos about specific people (in this one the perpetrator) to the public without making faces and other means of identification unrecognizable. No matter if recorded with a dashcam, or a simple camcorder or whatever. Courts are seen as the public, because its not private use anymore.

Some courts have ruled footage of them cannot be used as evidence, but those courts are just regional ones and other may rule differently.
Another ruling from the same regional court that forbid to use dashcam footage in a case, allowed it in another because the guy claimed he only turned it on after he suspected an accident would happen (which it did).
So basically you can just cut that footage to just show the accident and say you turned it on right before that and it will be used. Its stupid laws, but you can find a way around them.

it's not illegal, we got legal advice that told us it wasn't, so there!
Just because it was directly against multiple conventions AND United States law means nothing, Bush lawyers said it's OK, the rest of the world just doesn't understand because they're all too stupid.
Wait, aren't these the people who have been telling us that the government is taking over, doing illegal, immoral things and over reaching beyond the law? Now they don't need to know what the CIA does in our name because...Gruber and Benghazi!?! Now they say we need less 'conversation' about what WE do, and more about what other countries are doing.
I just lost about 17 IQ points watching this.

I couldn't even bear to watch the video to listen for the audio, but I think it's likely you are correct. This is yet another context-less internet video which someone has placed in an inflammatory context. Obviously they're not being cited for giving away food. That's not illegal. Everyone's flailing about "LET THEM FEED THE HOMELESS" (including the post title) but if there's a food safety violation going on here, well, it's the job of the police to make sure they don't get a bunch of people sick, especially some homeless folk who probably don't have a good way to get to the ER if they get really bad food poisoning.

A responsible news crew (or anyone interested in providing context) would have followed up with a word from the guys being cited, and with a police spokesperson to get the real story from both sides.

With all of that said, the cynic in me is still here. He says "it can't be that hard to give safe (apparently catered) food away on the street for free, with or without a permit".