Tucker6900
Regular Member
This is why parents have the ability to explain the difference in conduct and human nature to their kids. "Did you notice the way that boy acted, Billy? I don't want you to behave like that." Rather than controlling everyone around us who may do something we do not like, we should use it as a teaching experience of what behavior is acceptable or not to our kids.
As previously stated; they were not doing anything illegal. Their conduct may not have been ideal, but there are lots of people out there whose conduct I find un-acceptable. Should we start fining or locking up every girl in clothes too small for her, or guys with their pants below their butts? Should we regulate what activities the "undesirables" may indulge in?
Manners are nice, but not required. Rights, however, are not negotiable.
So the fact that the cop was in the wrong only matters if the kids are angels? And there is no "if" here about the officer's conduct.
To the parts in bold...I'm actually a bit speechless. 'Rights to the extent they were written'?! How about rights are rights are rights and shall not be infringed! How about natural rights? Ever heard of those? And under what clause, what reason, what justification do you have, to restrict these kids? Because they used some bad language? OMG!!! Lock 'em up!!! If we go with that logic, well, I find some of the things you're saying to be offensive, so I want you restricted!
See what I did there? You can't just throw shackles on someone that does something you don't like. That ain't how liberty works, sugar.
Well said.
Being a jaskass is not illegal. Annoying yes. But they didn't break the law. You seem to be more upset with the legal language than the officers assault. Makes one wonder who's side you are really on.
Ones annoyance of anothers exercise of rights is not grounds for criminal activity.
Last edited: