It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

To Certain Nameless Posters on this Board!

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Lightrule
 


You're mistaken. I didn't answer the question you posed because you think there is no answer in which I could possibly give that would suit you. If you are confused as to any words than I could clear it up. Instead, you want your beliefs to be right, and refuse to actually accept what I've told you as true. We could debate if the Fourth Amendment is properly applied in that case, but you don't want to. Instead, you'd rather ignore what the actual law says, and regurgitate crap based on your own feelings. The laws were created by people to memorialize what the people in general felt was necessary to protect their rights, while maintaining a balanced government. It's that simple.

On top of all of this, the BEST part about your last two posts is that you fail to recognize that you never asked me to explain the law and the legal system in a way you could understand. Instead, you asked me to explain the law and the legal system in a way the majority of other people on ATS could understand. If anyone has any questions as to what I mean at certain points, they can certainly ask. But something tells me I've given people an adequate description of the law in the relevant areas for them to understand how the Fourth Amendment would apply in the Good case, and how the American legal system works.

Another funny thing is that you ask me to give definitions of the following, knowing full well that no definition I give would ever meet your blind interpretation. I gave you a good faith based response, to which you ignored. Sort of proves the point of this thread, does it not? Ignorance is bliss my friend, I sure hope you are having a great time.
edit on 5-7-2011 by Ryanp5555 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-7-2011 by Ryanp5555 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-7-2011 by Ryanp5555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Ryanp5555
 


Hit a nerve did I?

Sadly this is a thread in the Rant section of the board so we won't be seeing very many people come into here to test my ideas.

These are the definitions taught in law school so are you just looking to take the mickey out of me or are you trying to piss all over the law itself?

I'm not mistaken here, my thesis defense was based on this exact topic (and I was awarded my Masters for it) so please, instead of just putting on your blinders and telling me that I don't understand the law provide some evidence that I am wrong. Do you even realize my given definitions are the sole basis of your argument. That being that the legal system is the written work of "the law" in which we are required to follow?

You just failed your first law school course and you are telling me that I'm using retarded arguments based on my own belief? Riiiiiiight....

-Lightrule



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lightrule
reply to post by Ryanp5555
 


Hit a nerve did I?

Sadly this is a thread in the Rant section of the board so we won't be seeing very many people come into here to test my ideas.

These are the definitions taught in law school so are you just looking to take the mickey out of me or are you trying to piss all over the law itself?

I'm not mistaken here, my thesis defense was based on this exact topic (and I was awarded my Masters for it) so please, instead of just putting on your blinders and telling me that I don't understand the law provide some evidence that I am wrong. Do you even realize my given definitions are the sole basis of your argument. That being that the legal system is the written work of "the law" in which we are required to follow?

You just failed your first law school course and you are telling me that I'm using retarded arguments based on my own belief? Riiiiiiight....

-Lightrule


I'm gonna practice the recommended technique people have recommended I try: letting this go. But let me say one thing: As someone who has graduated from Law School, and earned their doctorate in the study of law (Juris Doctor) I can assure you that what you just stated was taught in law school is NOT taught in law school, as you claim it is, since it is irrelevant.
edit on 5-7-2011 by Ryanp5555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Ryanp5555
 


If you search around ATS a little bit you will find my CV.

Something tells me if you had your JD you would be more inclined to agree with me, curious tho, do you honestly see yourself as better than everyone else? because that is really how you are coming off...

I find it suspect that I quote one of the best written works on the law ever and you disregard it totally.

Priest Class Lawyer...


-Lightrule



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lightrule
reply to post by Ryanp5555
 


If you search around ATS a little bit you will find my CV.

Something tells me if you had your JD you would be more inclined to agree with me, curious tho, do you honestly see yourself as better than everyone else? because that is really how you are coming off...

I find it suspect that I quote one of the best written works on the law ever and you disregard it totally.

Priest Class Lawyer...


-Lightrule


I do have my JD. As to the quote, that isn't about what was at issue. So, yes, I dismissed it. It does not mean I don't think it has merit in other contexts. However, as to the topic in which I was first ranting, and then you asking me what the legal system is and the law, then there is no relevance. You see, there is a difference between a philosophical debate about what is lawful vs. legal and what the law is as it pertains to Emily Good. In fact, if you read my posts on any of the Emily Good topics in which I comment, you will see that I say the cop didn't act ethically, that he was not in the right. However, I stated that I think he did act legally in arresting her.

As to me thinking I'm better than everyone, I don't. I don't think I'm better than anyone. However, I think I'm entitled to get frustrated. Which is what the original topic was about. Then you came on here and told me that this thread should stop (because you must be some sort of God around here or something). Then I played along with your game and answered your questions, I probably shouldn't have but I did. Then you said, nope you're wrong, and began doing exactly what I was complaining about in this very thread! So of course I became irritated. Then after that, you said I "flunked my first course in law school." To which I responded, finally telling you I know what I'm talking about (something I did not want to divulge as I think it detracts from the substance of the argument). And now, here you are telling me that I'm acting like I'm better than everyone. So, I apologize if I've come off as if I think I'm better than you. I am however, a bit agitated.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Ryanp5555
 


Firstly... My apologies for coming in and acting like an arse. I entered with a bit of attitude and my post showed it, granted I went from another heated law debate thread directly into yours so... yeah.

I was more just trying to point out the difference between law and legal for people that have not been trained to differentiate the two. You just really went for a home run on the legal side using lots of legal definitions for things that most people define in plain English. My bad for being so vague.

Anyways, in terms of the philosophical stance, where are you on this if you don't mind my asking?

For life is one giant philosophical quest for answers. Right?


-Lightrule



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Lightrule
 


I would tend to agree that there is a difference between what is "lawful" and "legal." I would also agree that a person has the right to defend their life, liberty, or property by force ... to an extent. I do not think you should be able to use force to defend solely your property when there is no threat of it being taken away from you. What I mean is, lets say you are on vacation, and someone steals your movies. You shouldn't be able to rig a bomb into the DVD cases so that, just in case this occurred while you were on vacation, you took someone else's life with your movies. Same goes for rigging a bomb at the front door to make sure no one can enter. I think the defense of property should exist only to the extent that the government tries to take it form you.

I would also agree that many of our laws are broken (U.S. laws cannot vouch for any other country). I think the Supreme Court has really missed the mark on many laws, especially since the Warren Court, in order to ride along their political parties lines (note: this does not include Civil rights cases or abortion cases). Where I really think the Court has gone wrong is in the sense of the Fourth Amendment. I do NOT believe that the framers wanted to give as much power to the police officers as they currently do (even though police officers weren't contemplated at that time). I do think we need to reform our laws in order to make our government smaller and to give back the rights of the people. However, I don't think we need total destruction just major reform. I hope that answers your question, if I left anything out let me know.

Also, I too would like to apologize for acting like an ass.




top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join