Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaneuf3
You know, you're right.
If you're not a teacher you should have no say or complaints about what happens to your kids while at school. You don't have the background!
If you're not a politician, you shouldn't be allowed to criticize the government. Further, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Just submit to their will. After all, what do you know - you don't have a masters in political science.
You're not a lawyer? Well you shouldn't ask questions about the law or in any way try to research it. Just do what they say and you'll be fine.
They're all acting in my best interest. Always. If you're not one of them, you're too ignorant to understand what they do and why they do it anyway.
|
You kinda missed the point. You have every right to ask questions and do some research. But don't go spouting off about some perceived injustice when you have very little background about the subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fokakya
That's just plain untrue. To be charged with an offense is to be accused by the law enforcement officer of committing said offense. She could very easily have been charged with obstruction if that's what the officer chose to accuse her of. Legally, it is very possible. What is not legally possible (at least in theory, not so much in practice) is to be convicted of a crime you did not commit. That's where the courts and the burden of proof come in.
|
Ummm... in order to be 'accused' and charged, the police generally need some sort of reasonable and probable grounds to do so. Thus, as I stated, it is NOT legally possible to be charged with an offence if the cop/transit officer does not have to grounds to do so. It must stand an objective and subjective test. That being said, there are bad cops and there are poor decisions made. But those are very infrequent.