Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
17 minutes ago, Skipper said:

I read the U of Chicago statement many praised.  I think there is a reasonable argument it is the correct approach.  I also think it's 50/50 whether they end up requesting the police take action before this is over.  They took a strong position without drawing any clear lines in the sand.  I know how that works with my kids.  Personally I prefer UF's statement that their campus isn't a daycare.

For anyone saying what has happened on other campuses is irrelevant to the discussion of what is going on at UT's campus I completely disagree.  Those campuses are real world examples of what has happened when you let "protestors" violate university policies without consequence.  It is absolutely a critical piece of the analysis.  Because that reality100% influenced this universities response.  Like others have said, there have been protests for months without issue.  Only recently have the protestors decided they weren't getting enough attention and ramped things up.   And by the way, UT is absolutely not alone in taking a firm stance this week regarding encampments.  If people want to focus on what happened last week, fine, I'll agree the response was probably over the top.   But Texas made it abundantly clear no encampments were permitted.  Those students yesterday intentionally crossed that line and Texas didn't blink.   

There are reasonable discussions and debate to be had around first amendment and what the line should be but I don't think it's a coincidence that those most outraged screaming "fascism" over and over are a combination of those that have been the most critical of Israel for months on this forum and those so obsessed with MAGA/Abbot that they look at any excuse to yell at the clouds.  I doubt many have the same energy if police cleared out the KKK after setting up tents on campus.

 

 

I saw what happened the last time a large group of people wearing MAGA gear marched on a building. We can't let that happen again, obviously, so we should start cracking skulls when they start to gather.

Ok, I'm sold.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Skipper said:

If you want to say the University jumped the gun last week, fine, but you all are living in a fantasy world if you don't think an 'encampment' was coming to campus if UT didn't act.  "Protestors" are trying to set them up all over the country this week.  You think this copycat tik tok generation was going to be content holding hands and singing kumbaya?

UT fucked up last week but I have zero problem with yesterday.

I don't care if an "encampment was coming." You don't get to shut down free speech based on what you think will happen. Period. 

As I said last week, once the protesters get violent, threatening, or violate reasonable restrictions, then you can act more forcefully. Not before then. I'm still not convinced that "no tents" is a reasonable restriction. And, the 2019 Texas law makes the protests at UT, and the restrictions the University can reasonably put in place, in a significantly different posture than the protests at other campuses. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

That is untrue.  Plenty last week were wearing masks/disguising their faces.  Which is against campus rules that have been posted many times in this thread.

The protests were shutdown before they were started. There was zero evidence because nothing had happened yet. Riot police because a few people are wearing masks is hardly a reasonable or appropriate response. I'll also add that prior case law on mask restrictions being reasonable I'd argue has questionable relevance in the post-Covid era. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, Foosters said:

I saw what happened the last time a large group of people wearing MAGA gear marched on a building. We can't let that happen again, obviously, so we should start cracking skulls when they start to gather.

Ok, I'm sold.

MAGA gathers on campus intentionally violating policy I would be the first one cheering on the police beating their ass and calling bullshit if they were treated differently.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm still not convinced that "no tents" is a reasonable restriction. 

Turning the south mall into a tent village is a pretty strong red line for me, regardless of the cause.  Genuinely surprised that so many on here don't seem to care. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted

if only the protesters would stop nonviolently breaking stupid rules. it's almost like stupid rules are put in place to be broken so those making the rules can make some examples or of the rule breakers

don't yall see the protesters are making the cops do this???

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Turning the south mall into a tent village is a pretty strong red line for me, regardless of the cause.  Genuinely surprised that so many on here don't seem to care. 

Why? It is a public forum under Texas law. If the tents aren't disrupting class, I'm failing to see the issue. Now, if you're talking about staying overnight and essentially living on campus, yes, that would be a problem. Tents during the middle of the day? That doesn't seem like a clear cut reasonable restriction to me. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Why? It is a public forum under Texas law. If the tents aren't disrupting class, I'm failing to see the issue. Now, if you're talking about staying overnight and essentially living on campus, yes, that would be a problem. Tents during the middle of the day? That doesn't seem like a clear cut reasonable restriction to me. 

... do you think these kids put up tents with the intention to take them down at the end of each day ?

Posted
2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Why? It is a public forum under Texas law. If the tents aren't disrupting class, I'm failing to see the issue. Now, if you're talking about staying overnight and essentially living on campus, yes, that would be a problem. Tents during the middle of the day? That doesn't seem like a clear cut reasonable restriction to me. 

You may not like them.  But those bans and the bans on masks are very likely enforceable by a reviewing court.

Posted
Just now, Chuckie Finster said:

... do you think these kids put up tents with the intention to take them down at the end of each day ?

I'm not fond of the no-tent "rule", but why not (and I know this is crazy talk) wait until they refuse to take down the few tents that were actually up?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

if only the protesters would stop nonviolently breaking stupid rules. it's almost like stupid rules are put in place to be broken so those seeing the rules can mccabe some examples

don't yall see the protesters are making the cops do this???

If your position is Texas not allowing the South Mall to turn into a tent city is a "stupid rule" - I had to tell you that I'm confident you have an extreme minority position.

Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not fond of the no-tent "rule", but why not (and I know this is crazy talk) wait until they refuse to take down the few tents that were actually up?

Ummm.... That's exactly what happened yesterday dude.   

Posted
18 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm still not convinced that "no tents" is a reasonable restriction. 

How is "no tents" a restriction on free speech at all? Do your protest. Just don't set up tents.

Posted
Just now, Skipper said:

If your position is Texas not allowing the South Mall to turn into a tent city is a "stupid rule" - I had to tell you that I'm confident you have an extreme minority position.

NOBODY TRIED TO TURN IT INTO A TENT CITY.

For fuck's sake.  Respond to the action, not the imagined action.

  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

2002?  Really?  Again, did you pay attention to what happened in spring 2020?  Were facemasks BANNED then, or were they eventually REQUIRED?

Of all things can we leave COVID nonsense out of this thread.  JFC

Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

2002?  Really?  Again, did you pay attention to what happened in spring 2020?  Were facemasks BANNED then, or were they eventually REQUIRED?

You think we are still in the spring of 2020?

Of course not.  If a pandemic was going on, that would be a factor.  It isn't.  

Posted
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

The bolded is why "FUCK YOU."  You are pissed about the content of the speech.  The content doesn't.  Fucking.  Matter.  That's the whole motherfucking point of the First Amendment, and the Texas Statute that your hero governor waved around (whoops....turns out he only meant that law to apply to speech he agrees with.  Bad move, Abbott).

I don't agree with any of the messages you stated (although you overstate like a motherfucker and commit about a dozen logical fallacies in the process).  But they are 100%...not 90%, not 99%, but 100% allowed by law to peacefully state their position, no matter how loathsome any of us may find it.

Either the First Amendment protects speech, or it doesn't.  You don't get to cherrypick its applicability based on whether you agree with the message.  That's the one approach that you can't take.  Yet.....a shitload of people on this very thread are taking it, demonstrating yet again that the percentage of Americans who get how the First Amendment works is likely in the low single digits.

Oh so this solely about 1A. Lock thread.

 

I am not overstating anything. The SJP funds these groups. There is a very long history of this NGO inciting violence and making lethal threats against Jews. The ADL has an extensive list that is public. The source of funding for these groups is an NGO that is funded by the Muslim Brotherhood Qatar. You can do a simple search of the campus student committees and the SJP and see for yourself. As for peacefully stating their position, the next time they do that will be the first time. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
Just now, Frank Drebin said:

You think we are still in the spring of 2020?

Of course not.  If a pandemic was going on, that would be a factor.  It isn't.  

No, I'm pushing back on the idea that facemasks should be banned, given that they weren't.  Keep up, sack.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

How is "no tents" a restriction on free speech at all? Do your protest. Just don't set up tents.

Exactly.  The issue with tents is that by setting them up, you are excluding others from using the public space.  You are literally occupying public space.

You can certainly occupy whatever public space you want with your body.  You don't get to use your body to occupy a public space and then a tent to occupy or reserve additional public space.

I can't go wheel in my deer blind that's on a trailer either. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Skipper said:

If your position is Texas not allowing the South Mall to turn into a tent city is a "stupid rule" - I had to tell you that I'm confident you have an extreme minority position.

Really?  Because we allow portions of campus and other state property to be turned into a "tent city" with great frequency and regularity.  Or, perhaps you've never been on campus on a football weekend, with tents all over?  Now, all of those circumstances have a rule to protect the overriding interest of the state and the university to not be turned into a permanent/overnight encampment: tents can only go up at a certain time, and must be taken down by a certain time.  I'm sure that if you leave your tent up on a state lot after hours, and refuse to vacate, DPS will remove you and your tent.  But to argue that a blanket "no tents, ever, for any amount of time" rule is necessary to protect the interest of that public property flies in the face of the fact that we have a different rule when you're putting up a tent for the purpose of celebrating longhorn football.

A rule that says "no tents can remain after hours/no overnight camping" would make perfect sense, and would almost certainly be enforceable as a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction.  The fact that I can put up a picture of the university and state property covered in tents on other dates for a different purpose demonstrates that the university actually does not need or enforce a strict "no tents ever" policy.  Nor should it.  Because that blanket policy would be dumb as hell.

Edited by Brisketexan
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

No, I'm pushing back on the idea that facemasks should be banned, given that they weren't.  Keep up, sack.

They are now.  Keep up.

They can challenge it in court.  But right now, in 2024, you cannot wear face masks in these protests.  Maybe a court will determine that restriction is overly broad.  But I doubt it.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Alien Octopus said:

As for peacefully stating their position, the next time they do that will be the first time. 

Really.....so you didn't hear any statements, see any signs, etc. from the UT student protests that peacefully stated their position?  Way to tell us that you haven't seen any of the photos or video.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Really?  Because we allow portions of campus and other state property to be turned into a "tent city" with great frequency and regularity.  Or, perhaps you've never been on campus on a football weekend, with tents all over?  Now, all of those circumstances have a rule to protect the overriding interest of the state and the university to not be turned into a permanent/overnight encampment: tents can only go up at a certain time, and must be taken down by a certain time.  I'm sure that if you leave your tent up on a state lot after hours, and refuse to vacate, DPS will remove you and your tent.  But to argue that a blanket "no tents, ever, for any amount of time" rule is necessary to protect the interest of that public property flies in the face of the fact that we have a different rule when you're putting up a tent for the purpose of celebrating longhorn football.

A rule that says "no tents can remain after hours/no overnight camping" would make perfect sense, and would almost certainly be enforceable as a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction.  The fact that I can put up a picture of the university and state property covered in tents on other dates for a different purpose demonstrates that the university actually does not need or enforce a strict "no tents ever" policy.  Nor should it.  Because that blanket policy would be dumb as hell.

Aren't tailgate tents permitted and paid for and only in designated spots?

Or do people just throw them up ad hoc on South Mall grass?  Been years since I have been to a game.

Posted

look... part of the point of a protest is to make everyone uncomfortable. if setting up tents is a violation of the rule and it was intentional, then yes, the protesters are pushing the boundaries and trying to make people uncomfortable. they are pushing for a response. its kind of the point of the protest. it draws attention in general and then specifically to their cause. i think its predictable and reasonable. its also reasonable for the police to break it up and enforce the rules. its predictable and reasonable. but at no time should either side become violent. its just not worth it to either side. the police should persist in a peaceful and patient manner for as long as it takes to enforce the rules until the protesters comply, including arrests. but they shouldn't be in riot gear. they shouldn't use pepper spray. they shouldn't forcibly remove anyone. they should keep doing everything they can in a peaceful way to enforce the rules. use your words. use reason and logic. and use patience. also, be smart. eventually they will comply and follow the rules. all of this applies to the protesters too. no violence. just peaceful protests. pushing the boundaries and knowing that you might get arrested. its part of the process. escalating and threatening on both sides is the worst thing you could do.

 

I do the same thing with my kids. I don't beat them or hit them or force them to do something. I am more determined and patient than they are. I diffuse the situation and wait for them to comply with my request. I never give in and I never get violent. I am pleasantly persistent. but I also listen to them and make them feel valued. what is the point? what message are you trying to communicate? how can we assist you with accomplishing your goal of having your message heard? sure it takes longer than cracking skulls but it usually ends in lessons learned on boths sides.

  • Hook 'Em 8
Posted
35 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

What the fuck is Revolutionary Optimism? Making sure your Che Guevarra is smiling?

It means stay off the ledge.

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Really?  Because we allow portions of campus and other state property to be turned into a "tent city" with great frequency and regularity.  Or, perhaps you've never been on campus on a football weekend, with tents all over?  Now, all of those circumstances have a rule to protect the overriding interest of the state and the university to not be turned into a permanent/overnight encampment: tents can only go up at a certain time, and must be taken down by a certain time.  I'm sure that if you leave your tent up on a state lot after hours, and refuse to vacate, DPS will remove you and your tent.  But to argue that a blanket "no tents, ever, for any amount of time" rule is necessary to protect the interest of that public property flies in the face of the fact that we have a different rule when you're putting up a tent for the purpose of celebrating longhorn football.

A rule that says "no tents can remain after hours/no overnight camping" would make perfect sense, and would almost certainly be enforceable as a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction.  The fact that I can put up a picture of the university and state property covered in tents on other dates for a different purpose demonstrates that the university actually does not need or enforce a strict "no tents ever" policy.  Nor should it.  Because that blanket policy would be dumb as hell.

JFC Brisket. This isn't a law school exam.   If "the cops shouldn't have arrested them until 10PM" is the hill you are going to die on, fine.   But we all know damn well their goal was to push past the line in the sand and get arrested yesterday whether that happened at 2PM or 10PM.   There is exactly a zero percent chance they picked up their tent and went home at sundown.

Edited by Skipper
Posted
21 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

... do you think these kids put up tents with the intention to take them down at the end of each day ?

I've taken tents to the park and the beach before for use during the day. So yes, I think that is possible.  Whether these particular people intended to do is irrelevant to the question of whether a blanket no tents policy on a public forum is reasonable. It may be, but I'd need a better justification than "someone might try and stay the night."  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
39 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't care if an "encampment was coming." You don't get to shut down free speech based on what you think will happen. Period. 

As I said last week, once the protesters get violent, threatening, or violate reasonable restrictions, then you can act more forcefully. Not before then. I'm still not convinced that "no tents" is a reasonable restriction. And, the 2019 Texas law makes the protests at UT, and the restrictions the University can reasonably put in place, in a significantly different posture than the protests at other campuses. 

I’ll push back gently on that, as aggy with limited knowledge of the South Mall and the purpose it serves. It seems like a meeting point and place for public use and speech, maybe with a lot of similarities to the National Mall. 
 

Tents aren’t speech and they aren’t critical to assembly and nearly all public spaces have rules and regulations in place to balance out their use as free speech and petition zones with the right of other people to use them as free speech/public use/petition zones.  You need permits and permission to put up tents and other temporary structures on the National Mall and I don’t see that as unreasonable.
 

Whether you are there for a protest or rally or just enjoying the rare spring weather, other people have the right to be there as well and it’s not really an infringement to draw some bright lines. “No structures or tents without permission” seems as good as any.  Maybe not “send in the riot cops” worthy, but it’s fine to say it’s not allowed because that’s not what the space is for.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I've taken tents to the park and the beach before for use during the day. So yes, I think that is possible.  Whether these particular people intended to do is irrelevant to the question of whether a blanket no tents policy on a public forum is reasonable. It may be, but I'd need a better justification than "someone might try and stay the night."  

I mean, these were publicly announced as an act of solidarity with the other nationwide encampments, all of which were overnight establishments.  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in this discussion, if I'm being honest.

 

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
28 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

Aren't tailgate tents permitted and paid for and only in designated spots?

Or do people just throw them up ad hoc on South Mall grass?  Been years since I have been to a game.

They're not "tents", they are almost all canopies like you see at kids soccer games.  Who the fuck would want to crawl in some hot ass tent, bereft of airflow before a game?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
25 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

How is "no tents" a restriction on free speech at all? Do your protest. Just don't set up tents.

A rule that indirectly serves as an impediment to the right to speech and assembly is in many ways more pernicious than a rule that directly inhibits those activities. For instance, imagine if there were a "no umbrellas" rule. The right to assemble and speak in the rain would be significantly hampered. While the most determined would not be deterred, many others would be. We can't let "reasonable" restrictions become a trojan horse for restrictions that would materially reduce the availability of free speech. Here, "no tents" serves to make free speech more difficult in the same way that a "no umbrellas" policy would. A no tent policy serves to make it more difficult to exercise a full day of assembly by preventing the assembled a place to rest out of the sun/elements.

Again, maybe no tents is a reasonable restriction. But I don't think it is cut and dry, particularly when a location has been specifically protected as a part of the public forum. I need something more than the argument that someone might try and stay past 10:00 pm. 

25 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Of all things can we leave COVID nonsense out of this thread.  JFC

I think our post-Covid reality is pretty dang important context in determining whether older case regarding masks is still relevant law. Not allowing masks in the wake of a pandemic is most certainly going to restrict free speech. I don't think we can call a blanket no mask policy as reasonable in this day and age. 

11 minutes ago, Skipper said:

JFC Brisket. This isn't a law school exam.   If "the cops shouldn't have arrested them until 10PM" is the hill you are going to die on, fine.   But we all know damn well their goal was to push past the line in the sand and get arrested yesterday whether that happened at 2PM or 10PM.   There is exactly a zero percent chance they picked up their tent and went home at sundown.

You don't get to ignore rights based upon what you think someone is going to do. Why is this so hard for you? 

1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I’ll push back gently on that, as aggy with limited knowledge of the South Mall and the purpose it serves. It seems like a meeting point and place for public use and speech, maybe with a lot of similarities to the National Mall. 
 

Tents aren’t speech and they aren’t critical to assembly and nearly all public spaces have rules and regulations in place to balance out their use as free speech and petition zones with the right of other people to use them as free speech/public use/petition zones.  You need permits and permission to put up tents and other temporary structures on the National Mall and I don’t see that as unreasonable.
 

Whether you are there for a protest or rally or just enjoying the rare spring weather, other people have the right to be there as well and it’s not really an infringement to draw some bright lines. “No structures or tents without permission” seems as good as any.  Maybe not “send in the riot cops” worthy, but it’s fine to say it’s not allowed because that’s not what the space is for.

See above. Tents are tools that may assist with the exercise of free speech. A blanket no tent policy in a protected public forum seems overly restrictive if the goal ensuring others have use of the space. It seems like a more reasonable restriction would be to allow tents so long as a permit is acquired in advance (as you described). UT doesn't have that mechanism.  

Posted
8 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I’ll push back gently on that, as aggy with limited knowledge of the South Mall and the purpose it serves. It seems like a meeting point and place for public use and speech, maybe with a lot of similarities to the National Mall

It's a relatively small field in the "six pack" just south of the tower. On any given school day it's covered with a bunch of students laying down or sitting in the grass reading or eating or just existing. Not really comparable to the national mall

 

9 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Whether you are there for a protest or rally or just enjoying the rare spring weather, other people have the right to be there as well and it’s not really an infringement to draw some bright lines.

They weren't actively preventing anyone else from being in the grass - they were sitting in a fucking circle holding hands when the cops cleared them out yesterday and last week. That's perfectly legal according to abbott's law, and if you think escalating directly to riot cops and flash bangs and teargas are an appropriate remedy to facemasks and tents, then you just may be a fascist

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
22 minutes ago, Skipper said:

JFC Brisket. This isn't a law school exam.   If "the cops shouldn't have arrested them until 10PM" is the hill you are going to die on, fine.   But we all know damn well their goal was to push past the line in the sand and get arrested yesterday whether that happened at 2PM or 10PM.   There is exactly a zero percent chance they picked up their tent and went home at sundown.

Cool.  So, we can beat and arrest people for future crime.  Just want to get your position on the record.

Also, I parked the other night at 7:30 pm, without paying, in a metered space that said the meter was active from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.  By your reasoning, I should have gotten a ticket, because I'm a known anti-authoritarian who likes to push boundaries, so I was gonna leave it there past 8:00 am without paying.

Reasonable and proper application of the law often IS a "law school exam question."  You guys wanna put up tents in solidarity?  Cool.  I think it's silly, I think your whole protest is silly, but the mission and needs of the university can be met and protected so long as your act of solidarity doesn't go past 10 pm.  Oh, you say you intend to stay after 10 pm? Well, I'm going to encourage you not to do that, because we will come by and remove all tents at 10:01.  I then have cops out there at 9:50 saying nicely "folks, curfew is at 10:00, so we need y'all and your stuff out in ten minutes.  And you can't return until 8:00 tomorrow."  Then, when they don't move (you know, when they ACTUALLY break the rules), remove them and their tents.

Future crime isn't a thing.

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

They're not "tents", they are almost all canopies like you see at kids soccer games.  Who the fuck would want to crawl in some hot ass tent, bereft of airflow before a game?

It's like you've never even heard of a sex tent.  @Wulaw Horn can educate you.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Cool.  So, we can beat and arrest people for future crime.  Just want to get your position on the record.

Also, I parked the other night at 7:30 pm, without paying, in a metered space that said the meter was active from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.  By your reasoning, I should have gotten a ticket, because I'm a known anti-authoritarian who likes to push boundaries, so I was gonna leave it there past 8:00 am without paying.

Reasonable and proper application of the law often IS a "law school exam question."  You guys wanna put up tents in solidarity?  Cool.  I think it's silly, I think your whole protest is silly, but the mission and needs of the university can be met and protected so long as your act of solidarity doesn't go past 10 pm.  Oh, you say you intend to stay after 10 pm? Well, I'm going to encourage you not to do that, because we will come by and remove all tents at 10:01.  I then have cops out there at 9:50 saying nicely "folks, curfew is at 10:00, so we need y'all and your stuff out in ten minutes.  And you can't return until 8:00 tomorrow."  Then, when they don't move (you know, when they ACTUALLY break the rules), remove them and their tents.

Future crime isn't a thing.

FINALLY you agree with Friday's actions.. phew

Posted
Quote

part of the point of a protest is to make everyone uncomfortable.

This is true, but one thing that seems to be lacking in a lot of young people who get involved in these efforts today is an understanding of how to tailor a message to (1) be heard/absorbed and (2) change hearts and minds.   Screaming at people, scrapping with police and other extreme tactics may be seen by the actors as justified/righteous - but they don't seem to be having a positive effect in terms of the general public (e.g. people who don't already have a strong opinion one way or the other).  It ends up turning the very people they're trying to convince against them.  

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
8 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I mean, these were publicly announced as an act of solidarity with the other nationwide encampments, all of which were overnight establishments.  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in this discussion, if I'm being honest.

 

It's just fucking lawyers being lawyers.  Getting everyone stuck in minutiae instead of focusing on the big picture or the reality of the situation because it suits their politics.

Posted
6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Also, I parked the other night at 7:30 pm, without paying, in a metered space that said the meter was active from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.  By your reasoning, I should have gotten a ticket, because I'm a known anti-authoritarian who likes to push boundaries, so I was gonna leave it there past 8:00 am without paying.

Had I been there, I'd have kung-fu, ninja punched you in the taint.  You are fucking lucky.....and I think you know this to be true.....

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...