Shreveport Mayor "Your rights are suspended"

[Gunslinger]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Well in a sense, he's right, isn't he?

Your right to liberty is certainly suspended until the cop decides to let you go.

Doesn't mean you don't have the right, but for the duration of the traffic stop, it's disabled. This is part of my problem with the existence of cops, government, authority, etc., but it's the way it is, as far as I can see.

Not saying your mayor isn't a jackass, I'm sure he probably is.

Your rights are never suspended. Otherwise, they couldn't be called "rights," could they? If they're violated, you have standing to let the courts defend them and reestablish that they are indeed 'rights.'

 

[Gunslinger]

imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:

barf wrote:

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Just remember, folks, these arsehats don't appoint themselves to power, stupid Amerikans ELECT them.

Tom, what prevents such a person from being ARRESTED or INDICTED ? After all, why should HE get a free pass? If any of us violated the law, would we still be strutting around BRAGGING about it?

Repeat after me: "we'd all be better off with NO government at all."

f-u-c-k you and all that you stand for.

completely uncalled for. totally and completely uncalled for.

I agree. I don't care for the "repeat after me..."line, either. But the response is as bad as the statement--if not worse.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Gunslinger wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

Well in a sense, he's right, isn't he?

Your right to liberty is certainly suspended until the cop decides to let you go.

Doesn't mean you don't have the right, but for the duration of the traffic stop, it's disabled. This is part of my problem with the existence of cops, government, authority, etc., but it's the way it is, as far as I can see.

Not saying your mayor isn't a jackass, I'm sure he probably is.

Your rights are never suspended. Otherwise, they couldn't be called "rights," could they? If they're violated, you have standing to let the courts defend them and reestablish that they are indeed 'rights.'

Okay, so the cops have the power to "violate" your rights. I don't see the difference between that and suspending, or disabling.

I thought "disable" was the word used in the legal profession to describe what happens to your rights when you are convicted of a crime, is it not? Like when a felon is denied the right to buy a gun, don't the lawyers say "his right to bear arms has been 'disabled'"?

Wonder if any of you lawyer guys can answer this technical question.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

SNIP I thought "disable" was the word used in the legal profession to describe what happens to your rights when you are convicted of a crime, is it not? Like when a felon is denied the right to buy a gun, don't the lawyers say "his right to bear arms has been 'disabled'"?

Good point. Even that misses the mark, though.

A right is a right is a right is a right. More accurate would be for the legal system to say that, "his right to buy a gun is unrecognized."

Might be kinda fun to review the history on these words. It occurs to me that to say a person has a legal disability has a bit of a statist premise behind it. Wonder where it all started.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

No, it doesn't miss the mark.

I am NOT saying a cop or a judge can take your rights away. Only nature or nature's god can do this, depending on your core beliefs.

But "suspending", "disabling", "refusing to recognize", and "infringing" all mean basically the same thing: some person is keeping you from exercising your rights.

When you are stopped by a cop in traffic, you are NOT free to leave. Therefore, your right to liberty has been suspended, infringed, disabled, unrecogized, whatever you want to call it.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

No, it doesn't miss the mark.

I am NOT saying a cop or a judge can take your rights away. Only nature or nature's god can do this, depending on your core beliefs.

But "suspending", "disabling", "refusing to recognize", and "infringing" all mean basically the same thing: some person is keeping you from exercising your rights.

When you are stopped by a cop in traffic, you are NOT free to leave. Therefore, your right to liberty has been suspended, infringed, disabled, unrecogized, whatever you want to call it.

I'm not talking about you missing the mark. I'm talking about government missing the mark for pretty much the reasons you give. I'm more in the direction of noticing the government covering-up the most apt description of what occurs--non-recognition.

I'm thinking that ifgovernment actually usedvariations of the root word"recognize"--every single time--more people might notice all the non-recognitions and start to realize the rights that are not-recognized must, by implication, still exist.Thegovernment can't have that, I'll bet.

 

[Gunslinger]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Gunslinger wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

Well in a sense, he's right, isn't he?

Your right to liberty is certainly suspended until the cop decides to let you go.

Doesn't mean you don't have the right, but for the duration of the traffic stop, it's disabled. This is part of my problem with the existence of cops, government, authority, etc., but it's the way it is, as far as I can see.

Not saying your mayor isn't a jackass, I'm sure he probably is.

Your rights are never suspended. Otherwise, they couldn't be called "rights," could they? If they're violated, you have standing to let the courts defend them and reestablish that they are indeed 'rights.'

Okay, so the cops have the power to "violate" your rights. I don't see the difference between that and suspending, or disabling.

I thought "disable" was the word used in the legal profession to describe what happens to your rights when you are convicted of a crime, is it not? Like when a felon is denied the right to buy a gun, don't the lawyers say "his right to bear arms has been 'disabled'"?

Wonder if any of you lawyer guys can answer this technical question.

Recision is the legal term.