snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Soapbox Derby

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 25 April 2014, 04:57 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,324
Default

He apparently thinks the entire civil rights movement was MLK's "job" and his alone (with maybe some help from Rosa Parks, whom he also mentioned), in addition to some mindblowingly ignorant things about slavery and sharecropping, so. . . yeah, maybe.

TL;DR: He's an idiot.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 25 April 2014, 11:38 PM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,162
Mouse

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lainie View Post
Cliven Bundy: Martin Luther King Jr. Would've Wanted Me to Be Able to Call Black People "Nigroes"

Well, that's not quite what he said. What he said is maybe worse.



Yeah, that lazy MLK hasn't done any work in 46 years!
I think MLK is the only black person he's heard of.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 26 April 2014, 02:38 AM
MisterGrey MisterGrey is offline
 
Join Date: 26 September 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 4,992
Default

Ragewar? Aw, man, I love that movie! It's so hilariously bad that.... oh... wait... range. Nevermind.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 26 April 2014, 02:53 AM
Wolf333's Avatar
Wolf333 Wolf333 is offline
 
Join Date: 12 August 2006
Location: Oxford, OH
Posts: 3,205
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouse View Post
I think MLK is the only black person he's heard of.
The Negro is actually just one giant black person.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 26 April 2014, 02:45 PM
Simply Madeline's Avatar
Simply Madeline Simply Madeline is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,525
Default

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...-conservatives

Quote:
When certain conservatives object to liberal characterizations of the American right, and when they bristle at suggestions that conservative policies draw some of their political vitality from unreconstructed racists (or resentful white voters, or anything other than ideologically pure freedom fighters) they aren't playacting.

At some point, to those conservatives, willful blindness to the political power of white conservative populism became unwillful. As far as they were concerned, anyone arguing that, say, welfare-state opposition or tenth-amendment fetishism derived any political support from racist whites was trafficking in racial McCarthyism. Perhaps at some point they had assumed a defensive crouch to protect themselves and their tribe from an uncomfortable reality, but eventually they grew comfortable in it.

The flip side of that kind of motivated reasoning is the development of a trusting kinship with anyone who, like Bundy, claimed to be pushing upward against the stomping jackboot of government. After all, they couldn't possibly be racist!

If the conservatives at Fox News and on the right flank of the Republican party had suspected that rallying to Cliven Bundy's defense would backfire, they probably wouldn't have done it. But it never even occurred to them.

Instead, they set about intentionally turning Bundy into a figure of national import—a cause celebre. They made him into a story, hectored the media to cover his fight with the Bureau of Land Management, drew partisan battle lines, and proceeded with confidence that his struggle would redound to the benefit of the right in some way.

But the moment they learned of his comments on Thursday, they set about chastising the same media for paying any attention to the guy.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 27 April 2014, 01:53 AM
Sylvanz's Avatar
Sylvanz Sylvanz is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,934
Default

I don't want a blood bath at all, but everyone of those people that were there aiming guns at federal agents and others, should be in jail. They should at least be going on trial. This especially applies to Bundy himself. He knows he's breaking the law, been breaking it for years, and is getting away with it. It just makes me so to hear him moan about "the negro" and all those other layabouts taking government handouts, when he's been illegally helping himself from the government (that he doesn't recognize the existence of) pockets. He's just been loving his 15 min. of fame, though he didn't realize that all good bigots keep their bigotry on the down low and carefully coded. This is just not a good precedent to set, but you really can't say encouraging it will set loose more loons because putting a stop to it with a battle will only make more loons come out of the woodwork. *sigh*
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 27 April 2014, 10:34 PM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,162
Mouse

It's one of the fundamental differences between the Left and the Right, Sylvanz.

The Left see Ruby Ridge and Waco as horrific tragedies that should be learned from and never repeated.

The Right, on the other hand, are just panting for another Ruby Ridge/Waco fiasco.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08 May 2014, 10:38 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,490
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
This situation makes me very confused [...]
I think I can clear up almost all of your ethical confusion, including this case: Taking things without permission is wrong and, because of that, it's often illegal.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09 May 2014, 12:09 AM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
Can someone please explain this to me, as US law is not something I'm familiar with?

As I understood it, the protesters claim that the BLM was acting out of their jurisdiction, based on the tenth amendment. I don't know if that holds water or not, but let's assume there is reasonable doubt (even if they have lost in court, courts are not always right).
It doesn't hold water at all. And having your day in court is all you're entitled to. We (and probably all stable democracies) rely on the rule of law, which means that after you get a final judgment from a court, having exhausted your appeals, etc., legally you don't get to rely on "but I think the court was wrong" as a defense to disobeying its orders.

Quote:
If they indeed were acting outside their jurisdiction, they would be breaking the law, and the protesters would be within their rights to disarm and apprehend them, which, I think, was more or less their demand.
Emphatically no. If a law enforcement officer is arresting a person, and the person thinks the arrest is unlawful, they can make that argument to the court they are brought in front of. There is no right to resist an unlawful arrest. That's so in part because sometimes it can only be determined after the fact whether an arrest was lawful. Also, the entire US is the jurisdiction of the federal agencies involved.

Quote:
If, and I don't say that it necessarily was so, it was true that the BLM was acting illegally, wasn't this exactly the type of situation that the second amendment was created in anticipation for and didn't it play out more or less the way the second amendment hoped it would, that the state, acting erroneously, backed down after a show of strength by the people?
Some people might say they interpret it that way, but that is not a mainstream interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and even the people who might claim that interpretation probably wouldn't if they didn't like the group of people pointing the guns. (Like, say, a Muslim group accused of supporting terrorists).

Quote:
This situation makes me very confused, and I feel that I'm lacking a lot of background information and knowledge to properly choose a side.
There's not that much to it. A guy has for years been refusing to pay the government for something he's been taking. He lost his final court battle and the government came to seize his cattle. He spun it as some kind of right wing cause and a bunch of ignoramuses with guns went to have a show down with the feds, because they live for that crap.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09 May 2014, 12:25 AM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,820
Default

hijack...
Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
Emphatically no. If a law enforcement officer is arresting a person, and the person thinks the arrest is unlawful, they can make that argument to the court they are brought in front of. There is no right to resist an unlawful arrest.
Here in Indiana you would have thought that was the case. Indeed the state supreme court said so;
http://www.dailypaul.com/294123/indi...-police-office

Then the NRA showed up;
http://www.courierpress.com/news/201...e---ev_barnes/

Law enforcement officers were not happy.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 09 May 2014, 01:10 AM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,829
Default

That's a very bad law, but even that is limited to illegal entries into homes, not all unlawful arrests.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09 May 2014, 02:43 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,422
Default

Actually, could it cover unlawful arrests too, depending on the definition of "unlawful force". If the arrest is going to be the kind where the person being arrested is taken down (which is probably pretty likely if the arrestee is armed), that would reasonably be considered force.

SENATE ENROLLED ACT No. 1

Quote:
(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09 May 2014, 04:06 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,829
Default

Yeah, that's a terrible, terrible law. Here, there is a right of self defense if the person reasonably believes there has been or imminently will be a use of excessive force by an officer. There's no corresponding right to resist an unlawful arrest.

But this law says "unlawful force", not "excessive force", which could be interpreted as any force at all in an unlawful arrest. So an officer taking down the correct suspect based on a warrant that is, say, based on stale information, or which contains a typo in the address, could be legally resisted (possibly) under this law. And if the suspect was known to be armed and dangerous, and the police came in with guns drawn, possibly they could be legally shot dead.

And in fact it could be a perfectly legal arrest, but the arrestee reasonably believes it isn't. So a suspect believes the police can't enter his home without a warrant under any circumstances, or knows the statute of limitations has run on his crime and doesn't know it was tolled while he was a fugitive, etc. Those people might get away with harming police.

The police in Indiana ought to resign en mass over this.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09 May 2014, 04:23 PM
Johnny Slick's Avatar
Johnny Slick Johnny Slick is offline
 
Join Date: 13 February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 11,628
Default

The flip side to this, though, is that if you don't include a provision like that, then pretty soon it doesn't really matter what a guy was arrested for in the first place because if he does anything remotely like resisting, for instance not immediately placing his hands behind his back so the police can handcuff him, what he's going to get charged with is resisting arrest. This probably won't matter much in white America where the police are nice and respectful, answer quickly when you call them but generally only when you call them, and make sure that all your rights are being respected, but in black/poor America where people are routinely rounded up for the highly felonious crime of hanging out on a street corner, it's a rather important distinction.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09 May 2014, 04:59 PM
Singing in the Drizzle Singing in the Drizzle is offline
 
Join Date: 24 November 2005
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 4,745
Default

As we know from a recent case this year in Texas that you have every right to shot and kill a peace officer if they come into your house unannounced even if they have a warrant. I

I found it.

Murder Charge Dropped Against Man who Killed Cop in No-Knock Raid
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09 May 2014, 05:28 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Slick View Post
The flip side to this, though, is that if you don't include a provision like that, then pretty soon it doesn't really matter what a guy was arrested for in the first place because if he does anything remotely like resisting, for instance not immediately placing his hands behind his back so the police can handcuff him, what he's going to get charged with is resisting arrest. This probably won't matter much in white America where the police are nice and respectful, answer quickly when you call them but generally only when you call them, and make sure that all your rights are being respected, but in black/poor America where people are routinely rounded up for the highly felonious crime of hanging out on a street corner, it's a rather important distinction.
You're talking about police lying about what a suspect did, or a jury believing an officer's testimony over a defendant's. Those things definitely happen, but enacting this law doesn't stop those things from happening. It just puts officers at greater risk.

I'm in favor of a self defense against excessive force law, like the one I mentioned. I think that strikes a good balance. A person being unlawfully arrested but who is in no danger from the police needs to go along peacefully and fight it out in court. A person who is being treated with excessive force has a right to defend him or herself against that force, which makes sense because waiting until you're before a court can't remedy a beating, or worst case, a death, that's already happened.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09 May 2014, 05:54 PM
Johnny Slick's Avatar
Johnny Slick Johnny Slick is offline
 
Join Date: 13 February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 11,628
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
You're talking about police lying about what a suspect did, or a jury believing an officer's testimony over a defendant's. Those things definitely happen, but enacting this law doesn't stop those things from happening. It just puts officers at greater risk.
It puts one more hurdle that corrupt police officers have to jump in order to wrongly arrest people. I can all but guarantee that if New York City got rid of this distinction, if you demanded to be taken downtown so you could be booked (which many innocent people do; in spite of the massive amount of extra time involved, not to mention the flat-out disregard for the Constitutional right to a speedy trial, being formally charged with something and then getting it dismissed is about the only way to keep it from showing up on your record in the end), you would be booked for resisting arrest.

Quote:
I'm in favor of a self defense against excessive force law, like the one I mentioned. I think that strikes a good balance. A person being unlawfully arrested but who is in no danger from the police needs to go along peacefully and fight it out in court. A person who is being treated with excessive force has a right to defend him or herself against that force, which makes sense because waiting until you're before a court can't remedy a beating, or worst case, a death, that's already happened.
You're right in that this would not prevent cops from lying. What happens here though is that under this idea, even if there's outside evidence - someone films a beating via their cell phone, for example - *any* sign of a person attempting to defend themselves vs. a police beatdown would be introduced as evidence that they were unlawfully resisting arrest.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10 May 2014, 01:55 PM
firefighter_raven's Avatar
firefighter_raven firefighter_raven is offline
 
Join Date: 27 September 2008
Location: Bend, OR
Posts: 2,994
Default Cliven Bundy II? Utah protesters prepare for new face-off with feds

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...ry.html#page=1
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10 May 2014, 02:50 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 8,763
Default

Maybe while the militia are all busy up there, federal officials can arrest Bundy.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10 May 2014, 02:57 PM
DawnStorm's Avatar
DawnStorm DawnStorm is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2003
Location: Montgomery County, MD
Posts: 16,168
Ponder

I don't think it's good for anybody to glom onto someone without first looking into the whole story. Why is this guy in trouble? Seems he has not paid grazing fees for years. OK so pay the damn grazing fees! Does this issue lead to a discussion about how much land is government-owned? It should but please for the love of all that's holy keep it rational and mature.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Brothels in Nevada Suffer as Web Disrupts Oldest Trade snopes Business Bytes 2 28 August 2013 11:46 PM
7-Eleven Stores Operated 'Modern Day Plantation System,' Feds Claim snopes Business Bytes 3 21 June 2013 05:00 PM
In the Nevada desert, there's something out there -- the Black Mailbox snopes Spook Central 2 29 August 2008 05:11 PM
Break a windshield with Jolly Rancher candy snopes Automobiles 23 11 September 2007 04:24 AM
Feds' dead reckoning turns out to be wrong snopes Trivia 1 16 July 2007 03:08 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.