Constitutional rights or douchebaggery?

[Xeones]

I never understood these guys who make a ruckus with the police while recording themselves. Why not just comply with everything the police tell you to? You could demonstrate that it is perfectly legal to carry a gun around and they can't do anything to you, or if they arrest you anyway, the cops will look even worse.

If you are just being a dick to them and refusing to do anything they say, people won't feel sorry for you when you are arrested, and it only makes the pro-gun side look worse.

Because the goal is to demonstrate their rights. They are intentionally trying to provoke police so if something happens they can shout "MY RIGHTS MY RIGHTS ARE BEING TAKEN AWAY POLICE STATE!"

The goal is literally to make things happen so they can have a story about it. Ignoring the fact that their actions scare people and make them want to push back.

[Wells]

That was my point: you can't compare two countries in the manner in which you are. It's apples and oranges.

Its fuji and granny smith. They're a western society of comparable GDP and governmental development.

[Part]

i cant even expres the amount of stupidity and douchebaggery i have just witnessed

this kind of shit is on par with feminazis running around crying rape because a cis white male scum opened the door for them

[Tinykong]

Its fuji and granny smith. They're a western society of comparable GDP and governmental development.

With completely different populations. All those things I mentioned previously are also major factors in over all crime rates.

[Wells]

With completely different populations. All those things I mentioned previously are also major factors in over all crime rates.

Countries don't need to be the same in every way to draw comparisons. Of course their populations are different and that probably has an affect, but its ridiculous and dishonest to just throw your hands up and declare any comparison invalid because of one difference.

[Tinykong]

Countries don't need to be the same in every way to draw comparisons. Of course their populations are different and that probably has an affect, but its ridiculous and dishonest to just throw your hands up and declare any comparison invalid because of one difference.

Nice strawman.

It's not a single difference. It's a multitude of major factors all of which directly increase crime rates.

[Wells]

Nice strawman.

It's not a single difference. It's a multitude of major factors all of which directly increase crime rates.

And dismissing comparisons because of them is at best an assumption on your part until you can show they account for the observed difference in violent crime.

[petej0]

How does gang related gun deaths in Canada compare to the US?

[Tinykong]

And dismissing comparisons because of them is at best an assumption on your part until you can show they account for the observed difference in violent crime.

Oh, so poverty and gangs don't contribute in a meaningful way to overall crime and violence?

Nice to know.

[Wells]

Oh, so poverty and gangs don't contribute in a meaningful way to overall crime and violence?

Nice to know.

I didn't say that. If you dismiss comparisons because of differences like poverty rates you have to assume they account for all the observed difference in violent crime rates, which is a poor assumption to make.

[Aeno]

How does gang related gun deaths in Canada compare to the US?

this /10chars

[Colmadero]

And when you argue that "reasonable suspicion" is unfair in NY but perfectly fine here...that's when logic no longer (if it ever did) applies.

Was he a "douche?" Sure. Did he break any laws? Not really. He pissed off some cops so they started looking for a reason to arrest him.

Congratulations.

By that argument every arse that mouths off to a cop, everyone that spits on a cop, half the people on these forums that act like all cops are evil, should be justifiably arrested. Equally anyone that "looks" weird or "suspicious" (which, might I add, is a fairly subjective term) should be arrested.

And I do love how this was used as an excuse to create another "gun-control" thread. We already have one of those.

As I said...did he violate any laws? It appears that he didn't. A Judge will make the final decision. If he broke no laws, however, then the police should be held responsible.

EDIT:
"Reasonable Suspicion" would indicate that they had reason to suspect that he was going to commit a crime. Other than being an arse and owning a gun, what reasons were there? Because, again, those two concepts could apply to a LOT of people who have no interest in committing a crime.

You don't have to bring in the law to be a douche. Cops are people just like you and me. Some are good, some are bad but at the end we're all human. What's the point of giving each other a hard time?