We have seen police charge everything from flatulence to a hug to a pillow attack as assault. However, this Toronto officer tells a young woman that if one of her bubbles touches his uniform, he will arrest her for assault. She is later shown being arrested.
What is most striking is that there is no report of this officer being suspended for such adolescent and unprofessional conduct. Toronto police appear to agree that bubble assault is a valid charge.
We have seen a man arrested for blowing a bubble in court but not as an act of assault.
Sorry Tom, The jerking off is the mental process that says we should ask cops to stand there and let people blow bubbles in their face.
TomMil,
For the sake of clarity, that would be “actual” jerking off and not “theoretical” jerking off, correct?
roflmao
Ok Russell, I guess I didn’t realize you were just jerking off. No mind reading necessary.
Well Tom, as I said when I started: let’s extend the “Theoretical” debate!
The point is I wouldn’t let some agitator in a crowd blow some unknown substance into my face, and the cop should have that right also.
But it is nice to have your mind reading skills to clarify the subject for us.
Wait, do cops in Canada carry guns?
This shit would have not happened in the US, you know a few nagas would open fire on the cop.
Cops like him and the people who support him, should be put to death like every other terrorist on the planet.
Fuck Death to America chants, Lets see some Death to Canada rising up
The comment above was to Russell, in case that wasn’t obvious.
Buddha is engaging your silly arguments head on but you should also know that at least one of the observers of your exchange with him recognizes the deep dishonesty that is inherent in your claim that the officer had any reasonable belief that he was in danger of exposure to ANY disease upon contact with those bubbles. The officer states his actual motives on the video, “You’re baiting the police!” he says through clenched teeth with a barely suppressed rage. This confrontation is about “contempt of cop” which is not a crime or offense of any kind. It is about how this little man’s self esteem/worth and feelings of superiority over the “human garbage” (read here, “citizens”) he is forced to tolerate on a daily basis is entirely dependent on the authority given to him by the State. This hippy girl didn’t acknowledge that superiority and it made his blood boil. That is reality. Those are the facts. The fact that you feel it necessary to concoct some other rationale for his conduct demonstrates how indefensible his behavior really was and reveals more about you than I think you realize.
In case you didn’t get the reference, Mr. Samsonite, I did a little more homework for you.
“Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion. Moving the goalposts can also take the form of reverse feature creep, in which features are eliminated from a product, and the goal of the project is redefined in such a way as to exclude the eliminated features.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost
You did realize this was a legal blog and as such people trained to argue and do other dialectic and logical magic tricks might frequent it, right? I certainly hope so because otherwise you’re simply a masochist.
“Morons abound who think differently! Obviously you are one of them!”
See if you can guess what I am now?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2ZeIoLz8FE&hl=en_US&fs=1]
Be sure to wipe the spittle off your keyboard as you foam at the mouth working up your next attack. It’ll gum up your keys or possibly give them HIV.
Or you can keep trying to move that goal post, Mr. “Unknown Substance”.
The cop even said, “It’s a detergent.”
Come on.
Make some more suppositions.
There is a difference between “rational” and “rationale”. While you possess an abundance of the later, the former seems to slip from your grasp. Like a bubble.
Oh I get it, Vapor Lock.
Shouting also makes you more correct too. (Pst! That’s sarcasm, son! The fast ones go right over your head! You’re built too low to the ground! You got a hole in your glove!)
Your argument based on incorrect facts. Any reasonable apprehension is based upon reason. An apprehension based on incorrect facts is a merely an unreasoned belief. Since reasonable is in fact part of the definition of “reasonable apprehension”, again your argument fails by definition.
But you keep trying. There’s nothing on TV and you’re doing a good imitation of “The Gong Show”.
How could you destroy my argument, you don’t even get my argument! My argument is that the science is irrelevant. That it is not unreasonable for the officer to be concerned about some unknown substance that is about to be blown in his face. So what if the HIV found in urine and tears, as your article says, is not dangerous. The officer has the personal right to not want “stuff” blown in his face! Morons abound who think differently! Obviously you are one of them!
You know the local council changed the laws regarding demonstrations right before this one and it only included this one…includes I am guessing bubble girls…and bubbles…
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg&hl=en_US&fs=1]
Did you catch that part about “HIV has been found at low concentrations in the saliva, tears and urine of infected individuals, but there are no recorded cases of infection by these secretions and the potential risk of transmission is negligible.”?
I just wanted to make sure you did so I can laugh all that much harder at your next feeble attack, Bubble Boy.
Do you even know what an encyclopedia is?
This is from Wikipedia’s HIV entry and it conforms to the all medical literature I’ve read:
“Three main transmission routes for HIV have been identified. HIV-2 is transmitted much less frequently by the mother-to-child and sexual route than HIV-1.
Sexual
The majority of HIV infections are acquired through unprotected sexual relations. Complacency about HIV plays a key role in HIV risk. Sexual transmission can occur when infected sexual secretions of one partner come into contact with the genital, oral, or rectal mucous membranes of another. In high-income countries, the risk of female-to-male transmission is 0.04% per act and male-to-female transmission is 0.08% per act. For various reasons, these rates are 4 to 10 times higher in low-income countries.[29] The rate for receptive anal intercourse is much higher, 1.7% per act.
The correct and consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of sexual transmission of HIV by about 85%. However, spermicide may actually increase the transmission rate.
Randomized, controlled trials in which uncircumcised men were randomly assigned to be medically circumcised in sterile conditions and given counseling and other men were not circumcised, have been conducted in South Africa, Kenya, and Uganda[46] showing reductions in female-to-male sexual HIV transmission of 60%, 53%, and 51% respectively. As a result, a panel of experts convened by WHO and the UNAIDS Secretariat has “recommended that male circumcision now be recognized as an additional important intervention to reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men.” Among men who have sex with men, there is insufficient evidence that male circumcision protects against HIV infection or other Sexually Transmitted Infections.
Studies of HIV among women who have undergone female genital cutting (FGC) have reported mixed results; for details see Female genital cutting#HIV.
[edit] Blood or blood product
In general, if infected blood comes into contact with any open wound, HIV may be transmitted. This transmission route can account for infections in intravenous drug users, hemophiliacs, and recipients of blood transfusions (though most transfusions are checked for HIV in the developed world) and blood products. It is also of concern for persons receiving medical care in regions where there is prevalent substandard hygiene in the use of injection equipment, such as the reuse of needles in Third World countries. Health care workers such as nurses, laboratory workers, and doctors have also been infected, although this occurs more rarely. Since transmission of HIV by blood became known medical personnel are required to protect themselves from contact with blood by the use of universal precautions. People who give and receive tattoos, piercings, and scarification procedures can also be at risk of infection.
HIV has been found at low concentrations in the saliva, tears and urine of infected individuals, but there are no recorded cases of infection by these secretions and the potential risk of transmission is negligible. It is not possible for mosquitoes to transmit HIV.”
The third vector listed is Mother to Child and since she was arrested for blowing bubble’s on Mr. Dim and not breast feeding or giving birth to him, that’s a moot vector.
You can do the rest of the homework regarding transmission of TB and the flu yourself.
Or apparently not.
But please.
Tell us again how I didn’t destroy your argument with science.
1) I destroyed your argument (such as it was) because it was apologist crap and factually in error about epidemiology, physics and use of bodily fluids as a weapon.
2) I make fun of you simply because I can. It has nothing to do with politics.
But please.
Continue to defend an irrational belief against science.
It’s a hoot.
Come on.
Rant some more, Factually Incorrect Boy.
It’s funny.