- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: New Louisiana law will criminalize approaching police under certain circumstances
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:38 am to Flats
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:38 am to Flats
quote:
Then you already don’t have the freedoms you claim this law would restrict
This only works if due process is eliminated and the ability to redress violations doesn't exist.
There isn't some force field that exists to protect rights, just as there isn't one to prevent criminal statutes from being violated. Our system is built to provide due process to address those violations.
1
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:42 am to Flats
quote:
Then you already don’t have the freedoms you claim this law would restrict.
"You already have to register short-barreled rifles. We just want you to register all semi-automatic rifles."
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:50 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This only works if due process is eliminated and the ability to redress violations doesn't exist.
Make up your mind. I post how an objective standard can protect a citizen and you essentially say "well, none of that matters because they can do what they want". Other posts have you claiming you enjoy a right that this law would restrict. If they can already do what they want then you don't have the right you claim you're losing. Which is it?
And as a lawyer if you don't see how an objective standard can take power away from the state then I don't know what to tell you. I'd much rather have that as a standard than the state's definition of "reasonable".
IRS: "Mr Flats, we have found that you didn't pay a reasonable amount of taxes this year. We'll let you know when you hit a number we think is reasonable."
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:56 am to Flats
quote:Exactly.
And as a lawyer if you don't see how an objective standard can take power away from the state then I don't know what to tell you. I'd much rather have that as a standard than the state's definition of "reasonable".
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:57 am to bhtigerfan
Limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds is an objective standard, too.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Update: you're always subject to how bad a day the cop is having.
True, but you're not always subject to a completely subjective standard to defend yourself with against his bad day.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:02 am to ChexMix
quote:
Protecting the police state. Dems rejoice.
fricking idiots
Which party has a supermajority in the LA legislature?
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:03 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds is an objective standard, too.
And it's a better standard than, "The limit is whatever an individual officer feels is reasonable on any given day."
For the same reason.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:34 am to wackatimesthree
Right, yet I'd think (or at least hope) the people crowing about limits on the Constitution would take issue with arbitrary magazine capacity restrictions.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:37 am to 4cubbies
quote:
lawfully engaged in the execution of his official duties
Interesting caveat. So this law should be null if an officer is unlawfully violating someone's rights.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:47 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
And it's a better standard than, "The limit is whatever an individual officer feels is reasonable on any given day." For the same reason.
Exactly. If 25 feet isn’t reasonable, fine, make it 15. We’ve already established that they can keep you a certain distance away, I don’t see the upside of leaving that distance up to the discretion of the guy who’s amped up and struggling with a suspect.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:55 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Right, yet I'd think (or at least hope) the people crowing about limits on the Constitution would take issue with arbitrary magazine capacity restrictions.
I guess the two issues are:
1. Should there be restrictions on this at all? You clearly do not think there should be in the case of magazine restrictions for citizens (and I agree). Therefore, you are regarding any restrictions at all as being arbitrary. And the fact that they have imposed any restrictions may certainly be said to be arbitrary in that case.
2. However, there is also the question of if restrictions are appropriate (and in the case of the topic of this thread I agree with Flats that it is appropriate to impose restrictions), and if so, are the restrictions specific and objective (or we might say "non-arbitrary") or non-specific and subjective (or we might say "arbitrary").
If there are going to be restrictions I prefer that they be objective and specific.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:58 am to Flats
quote:
Exactly. If 25 feet isn’t reasonable, fine, make it 15
Youre asking cops to estimate this on the fly and its going to go badly.
Will be abused to hell and back.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 11:05 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Should there be restrictions on this at all?
In my opinion, no. This is unnecessary and an overreach.
Regardless, "there are already restrictions" is a terrible excuse to push for or accept more. That's the cause of my point about magazine capacity.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 11:06 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Youre asking cops to estimate this on the fly and its going to go badly.
Will be abused to hell and back.
How will it possibly be abused more than a standard that basically says, "Whatever the officer feels like?"
At least with an objective, specific standard you have recourse after the fact.
With no specific standard at all you have nothing.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 11:09 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
How will it possibly be abused more than a standard that basically says, "Whatever the officer feels like?"
The answer is to get rid of the arbitrary standard, not try (and fail) to make it objective.
quote:
With no specific standard at all you have nothing.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 11:13 am to 4cubbies
Don't get close to your gov't overlords. La just keeps going backwards.
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News