I am shocked that you are here. You don’t belong here. I don’t know why the police have pursued it as far as they have.
I faced a 14-year jail sentence for carrying pepper spray
[The same words would be applicable the vast majority of people charged with the violation of gun laws.
H/T to Kris R. who sent me the link via a Facebook message.—Joe]
I also am shocked – that our legislatures and fellow citizens (through the initiative process) feel the need to pass restrictive laws that require the whims of sympathetic magistrates or police officers to shield us common folk. It’s great that the writer’s case was dismissed, but relying on getting the right judge to avoid going to jail over pepper spray (or a gun) is purely not equal justice under the law.
“Shocked”? Don’t know why the police have pursued it? Really? Are we still that dumb as to have no understanding of this? Or are we just playing dumb?
OK, I’ll play along in the dumbness for a moment, but only this far;
Again, if we pretend that certain “authorities” have the same morals and objectives as we have, if we’ve deluded ourselves enough to believe them when they take their Oath to the constitution, THEN their behavior becomes “shocking”. That’s a situation we fabricated for ourselves though. We made it up. We’re projecting our values into other people and then acting surprised when they don’t behave as we would. It’s a lie.
For all the talk about projection among the leftists, how do we not see it in ourselves?
It’s like changing the gravitational constant, doing the math using the wrong numbers, and then being “shocked” that our trajectory calculations yield the wrong solutions. We do that over, and over and over again, being “shocked” every time.
No, Grasshopper; there’s nothing shocking here whatsoever. Some people have a totally different agenda, and things like protecting human rights, honoring their Oath, and serving their fellow Man are not part of that agenda.
Aggravating people as a means of asserting authority is their agenda. They mean to rule, and that means raising themselves up and lowering you down. To put it into elementary schoolyard language, it’s to show us who’s boss.
Knowing that, understanding it, none of this stuff can be “shocking” or confusing in any way. It is merely the proof that this or that policeman, or department, legislature, judge, etc., is on the wrong side, working for the wrong alliance.
So we must ask ourselves; when, and under what conditions, can we allow ourselves to stop the pretending, the self-delusion, the projection, so we can stop being (or acting) shocked and see things more clearly?
Or is the proper question; are you truly shocked or are you pretending to be shocked? If you’re pretending, why, and who do you think benefits from your pretension?
So did she break their stupid law. Yes she did, she admits it.
The rest of the story is shopping for a judge who would give an entitled liberal woman a pass. Would the same judge give a man a pass?
Perhaps he would have given the same answer to a man. I was going to say “clearly he would, if he is one of those extremely rare judges who actually obeys the Constitution”. (Remember Marbury v. Madison: if it’s not permitted by the Constitution, it “is not law”.)
However, the case in question was in Australia, where there is no Constitution, so the fact that bad things happen to good people can’t be a surprise.