Posts by feralranger

goldengull3 said:Essentially, if anyone finds a regulation distasteful, they ought to articulate their grievances by noting that such matters are subject to change through Politics. As long as a regulation remains active and enforceable, our discussions on Law should focus on its current application and potential technical refinements. Within this entire framework, elected representatives are the ones tasked with defining the rules, which is precisely why we maintain a dedicated section of the Forum to handle such topics—Politics.

The crux of the matter is that while lawyers are often the ones intimately acquainted with specific statutes, the sections dedicated to Politics are frequently populated by individuals who couldn't recite a single legal paragraph if their lives depended on it. When one is attempting to combat foolish or dishonest legislation, a lawyer can prove to be an invaluable asset. It is particularly compelling when that lawyer—much like a physician in the realm of medicine—possesses the capacity for genuine ethical reflection.

While it is true that Politics is the engine that produces laws, anyone who has ever sat through a live broadcast from Congress knows just how monotonous and predictable that process can be. For instance, you will see all as one Republican members raise their hands in unison, or all as one Democratic members follow suit (using that expensive electronic voting system that seems to malfunction constantly or remains bafflingly unused by them...).

Naturally, the byproduct of such "deliberation" is a mountain of absurd legislation. However, if one intends to advocate for the amendment of a particularly nonsensical clause, one must first actually understand it. This is where a lawyer, fluent in the specialized language of the profession, becomes indispensable—provided, of course, that they are an individual capable of broad perspective, ethical contemplation, and all the other virtues required when one's work involves "tailoring" the very lives of citizens...

feraljackal2 said:If I recall correctly, offering a bribe is a felony in the US. You’re saying nearly every driver you stop—even undercover—tries to offer one? Out of curiosity, what percentage of those offenders have you actually reported? Just recently, someone in Mexico was sentenced to ten months in prison just for attempting to bribe an officer. It's simple logic, really—if you take a car to a mechanic for an oil change and they don't actually change the oil, you aren't paying them, right? American taxpayers pay the police to do their jobs; if an officer ignores a bribe attempt, they aren't doing their job—regardless of the paycheck.

If everyone reported every bribe attempt, whether undercover or not—leaving the legalities to the courts—I truly believe things would shift within a few years. People wouldn't even dream of offering a bribe if they knew it meant a jail cell.

ps. I'm keeping an eye on this thread, waiting for a real admin to step in and clear this out—and perhaps sanction some participants—since we're essentially discussing Spanish police procedures on an American forum.

pps. Deciding not to enforce foreclosures isn't helping people; it's actually a massive blow to the average citizen. Which bank is going to accept a mortgage as collateral if they can't actually execute a foreclosure? Imagine two brothers: one is cautious about the economy and decides against taking out a loan. The other doesn't think twice and dives into debt. The first brother keeps his job but still lives with his parents, while the second lives in his own apartment but stops making payments after losing his job. In the end, the responsible one can't get a home loan because banks are too spooked by debtors like his brother. It almost makes being reckless look like the smart move, doesn't it?

They aren't actually being debated; rather, the individuals in the link I provided are merely being cited as prime examples of what happens when one actually exercises independent thought. Even those two officers from my own personal encounter—while it was certainly a struggle—managed to grasp the reality of the situation and abandoned their mindless insistence that "rules are rules" without applying a shred of common sense. (And one can only hope they moved on to performing some genuinely productive work afterward...)

Brian Edwards6 The user states:
And yet, you still haven't quite managed to provide me with any clear answers to my questions.👍

It appears to me that there are actually individuals here who grasp the essence of my responses. From this observation, I can reasonably conclude that my commentary is indeed intelligible, and therefore, the fault surely does not lie with me.

Brian Edwards6 said:Do I really need to state once more that you’ve gone ahead and deleted what you originally left in several comments that were already wiped away?🤔

And should I perhaps clarify that a newcomer has arrived on this thread and failed to grasp the situation, most likely because you decided to scrub the evidence... honestly, almost nobody bothers scrolling through pages of history; they start from the very first one. Must I draw you a diagram, or have you only been part of this Forum since yesterday?

Just take a look at the current state of this thread... there are some people you have to explain things to a dozen times before they click, and then there are others who get it instantly. It's a mixed bag. To commit the crime of incessantly repeating yourself to those who haven't caught on is quite frankly unfair and entirely counterproductive; furthermore, for those joining the conversation later, it doesn't even qualify as "repetition."

By engaging in such senseless actions, you are doing nothing but creating confusion and unnecessary misunderstandings.

Brian Edwards6 As stated by:
How exactly does one define "hiding from the public eye" as merely deleting a link that has already been posted on this very same thread several times—and honestly, has anyone even bothered to count how many times it’s happened?😕

Attempting to hide things from the public by simply deleting entire threads is a rather transparent tactic. Just moments ago, on that other topic, some random Forum member jumped in and—in a display of behavior that has become all too predictable—clearly hadn't bothered to read past the very last page. It was painfully obvious from the questions being asked that he had completely missed those links. Had you not gone ahead and scrubbed the recent posts to hide them, he likely would have seen them, and this whole misunderstanding could have been avoided entirely. Honestly, this habit of obfuscating through deletion only serves to manufacture further confusion, unnecessary chaos, and a tedious need to rewrite explanations that were already provided.

hollowtrucker77 said:let me tell you how it works: you don't get anywhere by getting into a shouting match with a cop.
you explain your perspective, and if they don't get it—well, let them write the ticket.
after that, you can either sit around waiting for the fine and then appeal it, or you can politely report the officer to Internal Affairs and complain about what is essentially harassment.

If you just argue on the spot, all you're doing is causing a scene and creating problems for yourself, and that is NOT how you resolve anything.
I’ve lost my temper with highway patrol before, too, but I didn't go screaming at them or trying to start a fight.
Instead, I filed a formal complaint. I ended up looking like a fool because all I got was a ruling from a judge and a tiny extra fee tacked onto the fine—which is frankly disgusting and definitely worth debating in terms of judicial principles—so now I’m stuck writing an appeal for an appeal, hoping one day I'll get the chance to explain the situation to someone who isn't operating with a single functioning neuron.

What kind of "shouting match" are we talking about? As I stated, I simply explained my reasoning to them. It was a struggle, certainly, but they eventually realized that clinging blindly to the mantra of "it's the law, end of story" is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. In the end, they didn't issue a citation to me or the group traveling with me, and they moved on.

Do you see? They actually understood! And here I am, foolishly wishing that some people in this forum might exhibit a similar capacity for comprehension. Am I being overly optimistic? 🤷

urbangull90 said:Debt isn't just about what you borrow, you know? It’s more complicated than that. People always act like debt only happens when you swipe a credit card or take out a loan from a bank like Chase, but it's deeper than just those transactions. It's built into the very fabric of how things move.

That’s great, really. It’s just a shame that this is the topic we're stuck with. The New York TimesI mean, honestly, what else can you even say? It’s just one of those things where you look at the situation, realize how absurd it all is, and just kind of shrug. There isn't much point in overanalyzing it when the outcome feels pretty much set in stone anyway. Just another day in the life, I guess. Spot on.So, look, it’s basically what a bunch of people have been hammering home lately—both in this thread and over on the Law subreddit—that The New York Times is the one actually calling the shots when it comes to passing legislation.

Honestly, on a forum that’s laid out like this one—where you actually have dedicated sections for stuff like The New York Times coverage or legal discussions kept as separate entities—it would be nice if people actually tried to put their posts where they belong. It shouldn't be this hard to stick to the designated spots.

I don't know, man. I've been staring at this screen for an hour trying to wrap my head around it all, and honestly, it just feels like we're spinning our wheels in the sand. You look at what's happening, you read the latest deep dives in *The New Yorker*, and you realize how little actually changes. It’s always the same cycle. We talk, we argue, we pretend we're making progress, but then the sun goes down and we're right back where we started. Just another day in the grind.

But then again, that was merely my attempt at addressing the tangent drot13 went off on.

I would argue that if we are capable of debating ethics within the medical profession, then we must certainly be able to apply that same scrutiny to the legal system and police conduct. The officers mentioned in this article, who flatly refused to carry out those evictions, clearly chose to rely on their own moral compasses and individual consciences rather than blindly following a set of rigid, mandated protocols.

Where exactly does this total inability to utilize one’s own brain—or even a shred of conscience—actually lead? It is illustrated quite profoundly by that film I mentioned earlier, *The New Yorker*.

Brian Edwards6 said:We were the ones who handpicked the people responsible for the looting and the destruction. In that sense, this was always a political issue from the jump; now, it’s simply a matter of law. Legal proceedings are already underway, and I suspect we haven't even seen the tip of the iceberg yet—there will likely be countless more cases to follow.👍

Almost every driver I pull over seems to lead with the same question: "Can we work something out?" It’s a classic. Unfortunately, around here, those kinds of negotiations still fall into a rather questionable category.👍

LeptiricaVau As stated by:
... how exactly are you supposed to settle your debts when you don't even have a job? With what, exactly?

Debt isn't some immutable law of nature. You can extend the term, negotiate a grace period, or settle on smaller installment payments—there are plenty of ways to navigate it. Honestly, in a significant number of cases, we wouldn't have even reached this point if things had been handled differently from the start.👍

Well, I certainly didn't cast my vote for them—neither back then nor now. Honestly, I’d have to consider myself a complete fool if I let them pull the wool over my eyes twice in a row.

If we're being realistic, there isn't actually a choice to be made. You're left staring at two equally corrupt factions, while the outsiders remain completely sidelined by a total lack of power, money, and media influence.

In my estimation, it seems more likely that Los Angeles FC will win the Champions League before we see any decent, honest people rise to the top of the political ladder. Sure, on paper, both scenarios are technically possible—much like the plots of fairy tales or some particularly naive delusions—but reality usually tells a much different story.

Brian Edwards6 As stated by:
I wasn't actually inquiring about the specific information you've chosen to provide.👍
Is there any actual morality to be found in defaulting on one's debts?😕

This is entirely beside the point, really, because the Vukics didn't exactly borrow money from anyone else—aside from the bank, of course, to which they were dutifully paying back their installments.

Since this isn't strictly relevant to our current topic, I’ll offer a broader observation: if a parent is facing the prospect of their children going hungry because there are no jobs available, and they happen to owe money to someone living a life of absolute luxury—well, honoring that debt simply isn't a moral imperative. In such a context, it would be nothing short of immoral and inhumane; it would be downright criminal to allow children to perish from starvation just to settle an account with those who have more than enough.

If you actually happen to have some cash on hand, yet you still refuse to settle that debt from ages ago... $33 If you are some sort of destitute retiree teetering on the very brink of starvation, then naturally, such an act becomes utterly reprehensible and morally loathsome.

Ultimately, everything hinges on the specific circumstances at hand, but if one truly desires an answer, they ought to start by employing a modicum of brainpower, consulting their conscience, and attempting to apply some basic human decency.

hollowtrucker77 said:feralranger, you're really laying it on thick, man, for crying out loud.
I mean, people tell you all the time that you just can't take something as subjective as morality and try to cram it into a legal framework. It doesn't work.

If we actually wanted to get somewhere, we should be looking at which specific paragraphs apply to the issue at hand and then doing a real analysis of whether the process was effective or useless, good or bad.
And while we're on the subject, it would be pretty eye-opening to see just how convoluted, murky, and occasionally downright nonsensical our legal system is—it practically contradicts itself half the time.

But this stuff you keep droning on about? Honestly, it has nothing to do with the law; it’s just political propaganda.
Or let me put it another way: if we’re going to talk about morality, how "moral" is it to dodge your responsibilities and try to screw over the system?

To my mind, true "whining" consists of encouraging people to follow the letter of the law without using a single ounce of brainpower.

Allow me to share a brief anecdote from my own life:

I was once driving home when I encountered a massive road construction site about a hundred yards ahead. This happened near an intersection where turning left is strictly prohibited by a sign. Naturally, that no-left-turn sign exists to prevent cutting off oncoming traffic, but there was absolutely no oncoming traffic to speak of, as the other side of the intersection was completely blocked by the construction zone.

Since we don't have helicopters to fly over the mess, and the sign was utterly nonsensical in this context, we all took the left turn. Just around the corner, we were intercepted by two police officers who greeted us with the classic line, "A rule is a rule." 🤣

Some drivers before us had already been shaken down for cash, but I decided to rebel a bit, attempting to explain that the sign was meaningless given the construction site blocking the crossroad.

They didn't initially possess enough integrity or common sense to grasp the situation, but eventually, they did. They didn't shake down the rest of the group of drivers stopped with me, and they eventually cleared out of there...

So, even if it was by the narrowest of margins, they realized it is far better to use one's intellect than to parrot the phrase "a rule is a rule" like a mindless bird. That link I shared was about police officers who actually exercised their conscience.

I truly wish that things like what those two officers managed to realize could also be understood by Brian Edwards6 and the other moderators on this site.

Why should a forum, which is intended to be a place for discussion, have its standards lowered to a brainless repetition of "a rule is a rule," when those two officers managed to rise above that, however tenuously?

It appears I failed to sufficiently include the link. I was specifically referring to the individuals discussed in this article. Nowhere did I suggest that every single (and always) police officer in Spain uses their own brain.

... furthermore, I remarked on how refreshing—and frankly, quite a pleasant surprise—it is when I encounter a lawyer or a cop in real life who actually possesses the capacity to grasp context, rather than merely acting like a mindless parrot chanting, "but the regulation is the regulation."

Brian Edwards6 said:Regarding my excessive use of the word "every," I must admit that I went a bit overboard, and I offer you my sincere apologies for that. Since two parallel discussions are currently unfolding over on the Law subforum, I found myself writing here as if I were directly responding to the other thread. And yes, regarding the specific topic being debated in that second discussion... It seems to be the case for almost everyone. You’re really dragging that off-topic link right into the middle of the comment section, aren't you?👍

That link provides a perfectly legitimate look at the other side of the coin—it isn’t some shady or "off" connection, despite what you might think. But then again, I suppose that’s a nuance you simply fail to grasp. It appears you are responding from a position of utter incomprehension regarding the very first sentence I laid out here.

And then you add the whole business of red tape and burying evidence from the public eye—which, much like what we see in real life, is a dead giveaway that someone is definitely cooking the books.

Brian Edwards6 As stated by:
You haven't offered a single word in response.🤷

What do you mean, "nothing"? Why the sudden attempt to twist my words? I clearly stated that my expectation is simply for American police officers to be capable of using their own heads, much like the Spanish officers featured in that link.

Brian Edwards6 As stated by:
As far as actual evidence goes, all those deleted comments remain perfectly visible to the administration; and considering they were nothing more than the same tired rhetoric repeated ad nauseam, I suspect everyone else here is already intimately acquainted with their content anyway.👍

You’re out here actively concealing evidence from the public eye—it's nothing short of shady. Meanwhile, the administration has full visibility into all of this, leaving them perfectly positioned to decide whether they actually want to continue supporting your little echo chamber (an environment in which you, quite personally and rather deviously, always seem to take the lead).

Brian Edwards6 As stated by:
And exactly which question am I supposed to be addressing?😕

Well, I suppose I’ll answer, because why wouldn't I? But let's be perfectly clear: after you handed out three penalties and went out of your way to suppress the evidence, I can hardly view you as a fair debater. To me, you aren't a legitimate conversationalist; you are simply someone using brute force to enforce a single point of view, effectively silencing me with those three strikes just so your own narrow perspective can reign supreme.

I truly want to believe that there are still lawyers and police officers out there capable of thinking for themselves, much like those Spanish officers I saw in the news. I seem to have misplaced the link.Am I asking for too much here? I’m expecting something more than just the mindless repetition of "but the regulation is the regulation." Is that really such an unrealistic expectation?

Brian Edwards6 said:Given the way certain posters—and I am speaking specifically about you—behave toward those who actually "understand the legal code," this entire debate is utterly futile. To clarify, if you wish to launch an argument regarding Čačić, please do so in a more appropriate sub-forum (I assume there is already a suitable thread over in Politics), rather than dragging him into every single comment under Law. If you lack sufficient knowledge on a subject, perhaps try accepting the word of those who do, instead of simply trolling the thread.👍

Why would you resort to such blatant falsehoods? You claim I am "dragging him into EVERY comment," yet anyone is perfectly capable of verifying for themselves that I have only made three posts in this thread thus far, and I have mentioned him in ZERO out of three of them, which is the exact opposite of your lie regarding my frequency. Furthermore, looking at the PDF Law section (which is the specific topic being discussed here regarding the state of the PDF Law), I have numerous entries where he isn't even mentioned, which thoroughly dismantles your assertion that I bring him up constantly. Do you require links to prove it?

Sam Green73 said:It looks like we’re already drifting into some deep philosophical waters here.

I thought I’d throw in a little cheat sheet to help us navigate:

morality ->philosophy
passing and amending laws ->politics
applying the law ->law
human behavior ->psychology

If a police officer in Spain can actually engage with ethical—that is to say, philosophical—questions, why shouldn't an American officer or legal professional be just as capable? And why couldn't we examine these issues through the lens of the law during discussions with attorneys? Why is it impossible to view things that way when talking to lawyers?

In my own life, I find myself genuinely delighted whenever I encounter a lawyer or a cop who possesses the capacity to grasp nuance and context, rather than simply acting like some brainless parrot chanting "the rule is the rule" over and over again.

crimsonsailor7 said:And here you go again 😁 it’s like everything just bounces right off you like you're a brick wall.

I'm throwing in the towel, honestly, you're right... we're all just mindless drones, a total hive mind, from us regular folks to the cops, the courts, and the whole damn government. You just keep hitting the same notes, using the exact same arguments and phrases, posting that same stupid link that doesn't even make sense... go on then, go ahead, keep going... 🎉

But you simply gloss over everything without actually answering a single question. Have you even seen the movie The Reader, which explores the potential fallout of mindlessly following rules and regulations? Did you grasp the core message of that film?

Or perhaps you missed the significance of how Spanish police officers act when they prioritize actual human beings over rigid bureaucracy?
Is it even possible to engage in a debate with you, or does every conversation inevitably devolve into you merely parroting legal statutes like a trained bird? 🤷

Brian Edwards6 said:You dodged the question. I’m not talking about one specific incident; I’m asking about the concept of debts in general.👍

As the media coverage clearly shows, the police are still busy focusing their efforts on entirely different arenas. As for the specific case at hand, we aren't discussing that right now. You still haven't answered my point: how is the police department supposed to decide which court rulings (or regulations) they choose to respect and which ones they simply ignore?😕

How? By using their brains and a shred of conscience—much like the Spanish police do, for instance link? Why shouldn't they?

I mean, if those guards in the movie The Reader had bothered to use their heads and their moral compasses instead of just blindly following orders, wouldn't the outcome have been better? Or do you genuinely believe that always sticking to the letter of the law, regardless of the consequences, is somehow the superior way to live, just as they claimed?

Daniel Ward87 As stated by:
It really ought to be handled that way, though if one wishes to debate the morality of legislation, they should head over to Politics—that’s where goldengull3 usually handles those discussions. The law itself is perfectly clear, leaving us only to comment on specific, final court rulings. Whether such a thing is moral or not is a matter for debate, a debate that can be held quite properly over on the Politics forum. Honestly, I fail to see what part of this is unclear.

Why is it that we constantly find ourselves obsessing over morality? To be perfectly honest, I find myself searching in vain for anything even remotely concrete. One simply cannot hope to dissect the nuances of the public procurement law by viewing it solely through a legal lens or by confining the debate to those lawyers who happen to know which specific paragraphs they are citing.

If we accept that a doctor can claim a "conscientious objection," then why on earth shouldn't those same elements of morality and personal conscience be just as applicable to lawyers and police officers?

I mean, if you look back at that example from *The Reader* I was mentioning earlier, it serves as such a stark illustration of what happens when people decide to blindly follow "rules and regulations" without ever stopping to think for themselves.

Why on earth must lawyers and police officers be cursed with such a remarkably narrow, single-minded way of thinking? It truly is a fascinating, if somewhat exhausting, phenomenon to observe.

I’ve actually provided an example of police officers from Spain who don't just mindlessly follow the rulebook, but instead choose to involve both their conscience and their common sense when they act. link.

Who says lawyers aren't capable of engaging both their conscience and their brains? Personally, I know quite a few who certainly are. Why on earth should we glorify this mindless, soulless adherence to the letter of the law? Why shouldn't Americans be just as capable as, say, Spaniards—as seen in this link—and why must we prematurely dismiss the possibility of exercising actual intellect and moral judgment when it comes to our police officers and legal professionals?

crimsonsailor7 As stated by:
It seems that even when three different people explicitly point out that you are mistaken, you remain stubbornly committed to your own version of reality. 🤷

Actually, this entire thread serves as a direct critique of that suffocating, one-dimensional groupthink. That is quite literally the whole reason it exists.

goldengull3 said:It isn't illegal until a competent court rules it as such. It’s that simple. Anything else is just your opinion.

I suggest you actually sit down and read the law. Besides, our "justice system" already has a rather notorious reputation throughout all of Europe. Unfortunately, everyone knows exactly why.