LesActive

Very well, you can see into the future to know how this will all go down? Impressive! The officer's legal business was concluded, he then unlawfully gave her an order with which, lawfully and legally, she needn't have complied. As her non-compliance was an apparent affront to his authoritah he decided to escalate his use of force to an unlawful level. I would see her alleged kick to the officers shins as a defensive manoeuvre to his unlawful actions, which to my mind, she had every legal right to do. Unless, of course, you believe that no one has a right to defend themselves against unlawful actions of state officials. If that's the case then....never mind. I don't want to acquire points yet. Btw, this "SJW" has no issue with you having firearms for defence, target practice or hunting for subsistence. Just, you know, play safe.

I feel I should interject here and point out that there's distinction between the terms, 'legal' and 'lawful'. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Lawful imo, while Officer Encinia may have had legal grounds to do what he did during the stop, his actions and reasoning were unlawful. Some on this board would seem to have us believe that legal actions are always lawful and therefore ok. They're kidding themselves. As an aside: years ago, I had a chat with a retired OPP officer who told me that during his second year of service he was chastised for gross negligence by a judge for telling a driver that he'd broken the law when, in fact, the driver had broken a rule of legislation and not 'the law'. The Highway Traffic Act is not 'the law'. That was when he realized there's a distinction between legal and lawful and he never made that mistake again. imo, Encinia's escalation of force, while perhaps perfectly legal (and that's arguable), violated the spirit of the law.

Yes, context is key and I generally agree with your assessment of training procedures. This is not a war zone and I'm not in the habit of poking the bear but when the bear pokes you and your only options are to play dead or be dead.....well, it doesn't bode well for the local heralds of freedom. I have to wonder what the confrontational barometer looks like to certain officers. I believe that her rights were violated as well. imo, all public officers at all levels of gov't should enjoy all the rights that we do but be held to a much higher standard of accountability as a deterrence to this kind of crap. Perhaps I've seen too many videos of cops being lax about their own negligence of statutes while attempting to enforce imaginary ones.

I could be wrong but this all seems to be boiling down to a debate between officer safety and peoples rights. At the least: officer safety vs. due process. Are there people here willing to admit that officer safety is a superior concern to peoples rights and due process?

Because of my ignorance, I must question the rationale behind the position you take in paragraph three. What is the ratio when comparing the number of officers killed during routine traffic stops versus the number of officers not killed in the same situation? Are there even stats to compare? If there are stats available then I think we must determine the threat level required for an officer to feel justified to go into "hyper-vigilance mode", risking the death of the alleged perp, and not go by "sheer no." because, of course, that number never goes down. I'll wager that the number of people being pulled over and being killed is growing faster than the number of officers being killed when pulling them over. I assume you know the quote by Blackstone, "It is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffer." Seems to me that present policy is veering sharply from that philosophy at an alarming rate.

The law is an opinion backed by a gun. I don't argue with someone whose opinion is unwavering even if they are wrong, especially if they are armed to the teeth. That being said, i would much prefer to be treated with civility (as, I'm sure, would y'all) than have to sue them later for damages. An officer who obtains submission through unlawful means is a proponent of "noble cause corruption". They skirt the policies that are in place to protect the public from police malfeasance. Is it wrong to question an unlawful procedure at the moment it happens? I don't believe so but it is certainly dangerous when it absolutely should not be. It is not our duty to help police in theirs. Some may think that it's a sign of a good member of society to go along with police orders but if those orders are unlawful should we not have the right to object without being perceived as a threat? If a mere question is intimidating to an officer but does not further a threat against them physically I think it would behoove the officer to justify their position at that time rather than risk sanctioning later. After all, if they are 'correct' in their actions then they should be able to say why that is so which would take away that element of unlawfulness. Unfortunately, police are allowed to lie to get compliance and if you don't believe their lie then your disbelief may cost you, as in this unfortunate case of Sandra Bland, your life. That's a hefty fee for not believing a lie. Every 'law' written has the potential to cost someone their life. I am not cool with that. If this society is on the path to a police policy of "comply or die" then how can you not say that we are headed to a stasi-like situation? edited for grammar

I think the bottom 10% would disagree with your self assessment but certainly the top 1% carry the bulk of the wealth. The bracket that you've chosen to be in is your own doing. Is your tax rate a licence to crap on the poor? You could have always earned less. Unrestrained egos have a habit of wanting more than they need.

This makes me glad that some on here have decided to give a pass on the poisoned well. I have to wonder how busy this board would be had eugenics been implemented when it was thought to be a positive. You know, around the time that antiseptics were discovered, no workers rights groups existed, women were basically chattel, classism was obvious and the best hope for economic recovery was war. Yeah, those were the days. We wouldn't want a little thing like compassion to get in the way of the bottom line. Oh wait, some things never change.

Then my suspicions were not wrong, thank you for clarifying. You do not know the stigma firsthand as you didn't have to apply for it. Your family had alternatives (even if it did involve child labour), many others don't. Welfare is not a party, it won't even cover rent in many cases. Easily, having to rely on welfare is one of the most dehumanizing experiences you can have in this society. A very small percentage of people abuse it and I'll bet even less would prefer it to a decent job.

If I suspected wrongly then you did collect welfare, but your family would have none of it, so you didn't collect welfare? A bit confusing. Is child labour ok if it keeps the family off the dole? The poor always know that they're poor, often acutely. No "ist" of any stripe needs to tell them that.

As they should, benefitting as much as they do. As for your non sequitor, if you allow people to play a part then they generally will. I suspect that you've never been in a position to have to collect welfare for subsistence.

The premise of my question is not flawed, it was rhetorical and not in direct response to anything you brought up. Your posts in reply to mine are at least as rhetorical if not more so because of the straw man elements you raise. Do people need money for retirement? In this system, of course they do, so that is well outside the indices of my comments regarding obscene wealth. I'm no fan of any politician so that is a moot aspect.

I'm sure they do, it's the expectation that everyone has other options that is false. Abuse of the system is another bag o' cats. IMO, the wealthy abuse the system at far greater levels.

I'm writing with regard to the way I would like to see it, not how it is at present. I have no issue with supporting people who need it, such as single mothers with no other recourse.

I see that's how you would like to spin what I wrote, but that's not what I wrote. How many people do you know that need (as in necessary for one's own relative comfort) more than the average salary of $76 000? In my case I don't make near that because I don't need that much but then I'm single with no dependents, no debt and no credit. Most of the people I know don't make near that much either. Why do these people feel the need to make as much as possible, if not more? eta: I'm not writing about those with a few extra thousand tucked away for a rainy day, tuitions (which should also be free) or vacations. I'm writing about those with obscene amounts of wealth: the top 10%.

I would think that corporate welfare coupled with obscene profit far outstrips the cost of social welfare.

This thread is very revealing in its presentation of the divisiveness of entitlement inherent in the allegedly forced income tax scheme. I'm no economist, by any stretch, but it's pretty easy to see that those who are hoarding money by the truckload are harming the economy more than those who are, for whatever reason, too poor to help themselves out of the mess that they find themselves experiencing. If the analogy of economics as the body and money is the economy's blood, then the overly rich (yes there is such a thing) are clots. What happens when the body is forced to deal with too many clots? There seems to be a lot of blaming going on and it's the ones who suffer the most who are getting the brunt of the anger. There is certainly enough revenue generated to make everyone comfortable. Moral superiority is not a trump card with which you bash the poor

If a tattooer wants to call themselves an artist then, ok. Tattooist/tattooer/skin illustrator, whatever. All of us do commercial graphic design. Artists don't consider money when they create as that will influence how the work is done. Tattooers always consider the cost and aim to please their clients, both elements take the work out of the realm of art (imo) and bring into the realm of prostitution/crafting. If it's art it is a lesser form. Totally subjective though. How does the label, tattooerist work for you? Certain tattoos are job killers and I will counsel against them if I think they aren't ready for them. I was tattooing for 14 years before I decided to have my hand tattooed but I will never be an employee again so it's not a regrettable thing for me.

I've had quite a few come in and actually say, "I want a tattoo. What should I get?" I usually suggest a spider web across the throat which, so far at least, has no takers. I did have one ask what I would put on her if I had free reign and I explained that it would take me getting to know her far too intimately for my, and likely her, comfort. It's very difficult to know what people like when you first meet them and it can take quite a bit of work to get to the point where we understand each other enough for me to get started on a design that will satisfy both of us. Funny thing, folks take this permanence thing seriously. To have someone come in and ask me to do what I wanted on them is far too much of a gamble and potential waste of time for me to take. They're going to want to see the design before it's tattooed and they'll always have the option to decline. Like I mentioned earlier, my own artwork is not suitable for tattooing and I wouldn't waste the effort putting my personal ideas on a canvas with an opinion about what I'm doing and which has a relatively short life span. I could sneak a clause into the waiver claiming post mortem rights to the tattoo, I suppose. I think I prefer to stick to more inert mediums for my own thing. They don't bitch or fade. Having a reason for getting a tattoo is a funny thing. I get asked why I have certain tattoos quite a bit and I quote nomeansno, because "nonsense is better than no sense at all". It's really no ones business why I get what I get nor is it my business to judge them on what they get, unless I find it offensive and don't wish to be associated with it. People are hung up on rationalizing everything in an effort to justify their actions when it's just a tattoo. Your body is a temple, decorate the walls.......No Regerts.

There's not much on this planet that is as subjective as personal views on art. I never said that tattooing couldn't reach the level of art, just that it's a very rare event when it does. Art is more than fine rendering of a given subject matter. There are thousands of people who can render well, there are relatively few who develop a unique voice. Artists who study the history of art soon learn that realism, photo or otherwise, is only the beginning and is part of the training to eventually express yourself through the marks that you make. If you were to look at Picasso's early work you would find an artist who is extremely sensitive to the vagaries of light and shadow, giving the viewers a near literal 2D interpretation of what he saw in 3D. That was his starting point and many would say that he regressed from there into child-like images. It's my opinion that he progressed from the point of illustration to developing his own vision into a realm well beyond that of mere craft. Art is never obvious, illustrations are obvious by necessity. Art is rarely easy. Not every pretty picture is art. In the images above, the viewer may be required to put some work into thinking about what's going on. Is it representative? Is it symbolic? What does it remind you of? Why are they leaning against wall? Why are they on the floor and not hanging? What kind of yellow is that? What does yellow mean? What feelings do yellow and black juxtaposed evoke in you? There are dozens of other questions that the artist 'may' want you to consider. I'm not overly fond of the images above but I wouldn't brush them off so quickly merely because I don't understand them immediately. People tend to like what they know. Artists can and do challenge what you know. Thank the impressionists.

I have to agree with Prime. It's definitely not a fad. Certain design styles come and go (haven't done a 'tribal' armband in years, thankfully) but the notion of adorning the body with patterns has existed long before the establishment of so-called civilization and will likely continue for many millennia to come. You can change your clothes and cut your hair but tattoos are (basically) permanent. As with fashion choices, people will always be inspired by the acts of others. Certain t.v. programs have helped demystify aspects of tattooing to the masses which has created a huge surge in popularity over the past ten years, but it has also given people a false or staged look into how the process works. The programs are heavily dramatized but that hasn't stemmed the tide.

I am in near full agreement with your first two sentences. There is bad graffiti and good graffiti. I've always considered tattooing to be a craft which very rarely reaches the level of art. But then, I'm an art snob. In 15 years of working I have yet to put 'art' on people, mostly because that's not my job. My job is to help people express themselves through their chosen imagery. For tattooing to be considered 'art' I would need to express myself but that is not what I'm being paid to do. I'm an art whore and it pays the bills. My own art work would not translate to human skin. You do know what 'commission' means, right? So, you know two women who have tattoos, two. That's a rather incomplete survey of tattoo aficionados to make such broad assumptions as to the wearers intentions as you just did. People are much more complex than you give them credit for. But, hey, if you want to be judgy like that, that's your choice.

I suppose you could interpret it that way and certainly many do it just for that reason (rejection of the old you) but in general I would see it as an addition of their own choice to the standard identifiers you highlight. Like I mentioned earlier, family crests are very popular as are flags, map outlines of countries (some with flags in them), geo-coordinates, parents/kids names/portraits, relevant dates and etc. are reaffirmations. That's the more literal stuff and then there is representational imagery of their psyche that they want to put on display so they can be 'read'. It can be political, religious/spiritual (mandalas are very popular now), club affiliations, pop culture and of course nonsense. Many just want a little decoration. While the outsider image is still an obvious, alluring element of tattooing in this society (the separatist tribalism you imply), there is also the growing ubiquity of tattoos that is just as quickly changing how they are accepted as it is driving those opposed to the idea of tattoos in 'polite' society further into their bunkers of disdain. There is an hilarious FaceBook group called, "your tattoos make you a horrible mother" some here may want to check out. It's trollicious!

ahahahaha, that's pure gold! Do you have any more?

The old adage holds true: The only real difference between those with tattoos and those without is that those with tattoos don't care that you don't have any. I turn away many people who aren't ready to have certain areas illustrated. Hands, necks and faces are the no-go zones for clear skins but if you're over 60 and have already lived a full life I'm pretty sure you're mature enough to decide for yourself. If, however, you come in at 18 years of age and want your boyfriends name tattooed across your neck as your first one (or even your fifth or sixth one if you don't have at least your forearms covered) then I'm going to talk you out of it. There are many shops that would do that tattoo to get money out of you and then there are those with a strong sense of ethics and responsibility who would rather you have no regrets about the placement of your design. The stigma of being marked is still strong in this society. Indeed. people judge me all the time and I admit that I asked for it. Not specifically, mind you but that is the effect. I am by no means into extreme modification. I know people who have done things to themselves that would make people on this board wretch in disgust. Compared to scarification, hanging from hooks, amputation, gunshots and branding, tattooing is kinda tame in the body mod arena. A few years ago I visited my hometown (pop. 4200) and was immediately ostracized for the ring in my septum (between the nostrils). However, because that town is no longer part of my community their judgements meant very little to me. So, go ahead, judge away! It's because of this stigmatization that when I finish a piece on virgin skin I often tell them that they are now one of us...one of us...one of us and to be prepared to witness old ladies fainting and children running away from you screaming. They don't seem to mind. There is a certain confidence required of the individual before they get tattooed. It is about commitment after all. They know that they will judged. The overly self conscious will never mark themselves. Those that realize that life is not a forever deal have few issues with the idea of 'permanent' marks. They aren't forever, you'll rot eventually.