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.
If you are suggesting ignorance and blind stupidity, you don’t have to look a mile away. Look inward!
Gyges,
Why bother? This guy reminds me of the old joke about coonasses.
“You can tell a coonass from a mile away, but up close you can’t tell ’em nothin’.”
***YAWN*** pardon
would be because I’m snoring.
That would because I’m snoring.
It did not seem like the squeal of delight, but more like the squeal of a stuck pig that just got slaughtered.
And Buddha, it doesn’t sound like you are laughing anymore!
Buddha,
Think one of us should explain that he needs to provide evidence for his claim other than “well someone could think that it could happen?”
Was that a squeal?
“Buddha, You cinch your case with your own evidence”
I most certainly did.
Evidence I provided, not evidence I made up, you see, because that’s what lawyers do, ‘lil Russell. They gather evidence and present arguments based on fact, logic and law. I’m not immune to the “argument” you made. I destroyed it. Because it sucked for the aforementioned reasons of factual and logical deficiency. The only thing you’ve demonstrated is that you couldn’t beat me in an argument if you used a stick.
But you keep foaming at the authoritarian boot licking mouth, sport.
It’s not helping your germophobic fantasy “case” and quite frankly by continuing to blather you’re making a bigger fool of yourself than anyone here could. Which is often what happens when somebody has borderline personality disorder – your own feelings of inadequacy become your own worst enemy. Which in itself is mildly entertaining but just as irrelevant as your “argument”.
Buddha, You cinch your case with your own evidence, a buffoon pretending to be a scientific expert. Logic is wasted on you. It is like playing a violin to a buffalo. I did make the case; you just didn’t “get it”.
There is no doubt that the issues of defiance came into play. But only a self-important pompous ass would make the assertion that with absolutely certainly there could be no health risk from the bubbles. And it is not reasonable to expect officers to stand there and let people blow bubbles in their face.
The Officer got no public support because the public saw an officer with the hair up on the back of his neck against a poor girl with bubbles. He was rope-a-doped by a cleaver girl.
But he had the right to not want the bubbles blown in his face. His mistake was he should have tapped down the up-against-the-wall assume the position attitude! Then he would have been more effective.
Buddha you have already demonstrated that you are immune to the argument I am making. But it is not because my argument lacks sound reason and logic.
“An argument without proof and/or logic”
Just call me “Quick Sumbit McGraw”.
Wait. No.
That’s not quite it . . . no internal rhythm to the moniker.
As Clarification:
I meant Shelley’s Ozymandias, not the Moore’s Ozymandias.
There’s just enough geeks that might have gotten that confused.
Gyges,
Poach away, brother.
You use of ad hominem attacks do not support your case nor are they entertaining, unlike mine which are used for humorous effect as reductio ad absurdum is a valid strategy that can use humor in application. One should not attempt to use the tools of either logic or acerbic humor if one does not understand them but not understanding hasn’t stopped you so far. Making fools dance like a trained monkey is always entertaining but the monkey usually doesn’t get why people are laughing at them.
But back to your “case” such as it is, Empty Luggage:
I provided proof and logic.
You provided conjecture, illogic and no facts to back your assertions. Just indignation that some “agitator” was not respectful enough to the cops for your liking.
An argument without proof and/or is merely an opinion and/or unfounded belief.
To make a case, one must win the argument.
You rest your case?
You never made one.
You are again and have been consistently both factually and logically deficient.
I rest my case.
Buddha,
Forgive my poaching.
Russell,
Actually, the fact that it’s impossible for any of your terrible 1970s super-villain scenarios to happen, combined with Buddha’s aversion to displays of authority for authorities sake makes him say that the officer should allow bubbles to be blown in his face.
I agree.
But you know what? That’s all entirely beside the point, the officer in question doesn’t seem all that concerned over the safety issue. He’s concerned with the respect for his authority issue.
So the question is instead, should the protester cower before the mighty Ozymandias in his uniform?
Buddha,
Because you believe that it is not “scientifically possible” for HIV, TB, spit, urine, H1N1, Hepatitis, etc to be transmitted through bubbles that the officer should allow crowd agitators to blow them in his face. Does that make logical sense to you? Apparently it does! I rest my case!
People are really arguing that Bubbles can be made of acid? Or alternately that they can be used to transmit the HIV virus?
Or, alternately, people really are arguing that the police are so poorly educated as to think that bubbles could be made of acid, or transmit the HIV virus?
And people think the woman blowing the bubbles had no respect for the police.
The median IQ level has dropped considerably since you started posting, Mr. Factually Ignorant and Logically Deficient.
One gets the rebuttals their arguments merit.
In your case, that’s degenerated to outright mockery.
Enjoy!
I know I will as will the other regular readers who have enjoyed the verbal shredding trolls and the weak minded take in this forum when they cannot factually or logically back up their beliefs and/or assertions.
Buddha, from the “Farting videos” you are sending me, I can see what you mean about how intelligent this board is!
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWBUl7oT9sA&hl=en_US&fs=1]
authoritarian \ȯ-ˌthär-ə-ˈter-ē-ən, ə-, -ˌthȯr-\, adj.,
1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority (had authoritarian parents)
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people (an authoritarian regime)
illogical \ill-la-ji-kəl\, adj.,
1 : not observing the principles of logic (an illogical argument)
2 : devoid of logic : senseless (illogical policies)
nitwit \ˈnit-ˌwit\, n.,
: a scatterbrained or stupid person