A rights violation is a rights violation from anyone's viewpoint.

The reasons for Cops violating rights will vary and have never been prevented by any court.  Pretending you don't see that doesn't change the fact that a violation is a violation for ANY REASON.

No difference whether the Cop is having a bad day or is power-tripping.

So detail and nuance only matter when YOU identify them?

Yes, a rights violation is a rights violation.  The point is that correcting the behavior that resulted in the violation requires understanding the root cause.  In understanding the root cause, it absolutely matters whether it was a power-tripping cop getting his jollies by exercising power, or a cop trying to achieve a public safety outcome and bending the rules to get there, or a cop who just doesn’t understand the Constitution.

Details (and nuance) are the Devil's playground.

So why do you spend so much time there?

If you caveat and nuance and hypothesize and analyze all of your core values, you soon find out you've created nothing but a world of gray areas with no concept, let alone existence, of right & wrong, individual liberty or any other ideal.

You can be the referee who calls balls and strikes, or you can be the judge who listens to all sides.  in the end, the game hinges on the calls the referee makes.  Let the line judge handle disputes. but when the violation is obvious, there's no "detail or nuance."

There may be little or no detail or nuance about whether the violation occurred, but whether you believe it or not, detail and nuance do matter when it comes to determining why the violation occurred so you can most effectively correct the problem.

And unless you're all for "on the job training" for new recruits, Cops need to understand the part of the Constitution called the Bill of Rights.  It's what tells them what not to do.  if they can't be bothered to learn it before going out and areesting people, then we're going to have much bigger problems.

I’m absolutely for OJT for cops.  Not a single cop ever came out of the academy knowing everything they needed to know.  I want every cop on the force to be learning and training every day.

If someone that's a representative of the state is blatantly violating my constitutionally protected rights, i'm not going to have a conversation with them to discover if it's a training issue, if his wife beats him up, or if he hates old White people. 

I didn’t say I wanted you to have a conversation with cop about why they violated your rights.  I said the reason why matters for correcting the problem for the future.

And if you think a Cop "trying to catch a drug dealer" is justified in stepping over the line to violate ANYONE'S Constitutionally protected rights, then maybe it's people like you who are the problem.

Good one!  Except I didn’t say that either.  As you and I both said, “a rights violation is a rights violation,” and it’s wrong.  I used that scenario as a part of a set of examples that may require different approaches to corrective action.

A protected right is not a right if the law can't keep the government's representatives in check without having to take it to court.

So if you feel that a cop is violating your rights, you’re going to fight him/her over it?  Let us know how that works out for you.  I’ll take it up in court.

You love detail and nuance when you’re picking nits on somebody else’s post, but when someone points it out to you, it’s “the Devil’s playground?” 

You seem to enjoy attacking all my posts.

I wonder why you're even on here.

This instance is nothing special.

Have a nice night.   

yea...not hanging out with you people..

I pass by WAY more of your posts than I reply to; every once in a while, I point out what appears to me to by flawed reasoning or hypocrisy.

I’m on here because there’s some useful info about 2A support efforts in Hawaii.  And because it’s intermittently amusing.

And I attack a lot of posts?  “Hey kettle, this is pot… You’re black.”

I don't think we should BBQ.

Let's scratch that idea.

I'll just do as OF and buy some more popcorn.

I don't think we should BBQ.

Let's scratch that idea.

I'll just do as OF and buy some more popcorn.

Details (and nuance) are the Devil's playground.

A rights violation is a rights violation from anyone's viewpoint.

The reasons for Cops violating rights will vary and have never been prevented by any court.  Pretending you don't see that doesn't change the fact that a violation is a violation for ANY REASON.

No difference whether the Cop is having a bad day or is power-tripping.

So what you're saying is it's OK for an officer to be subjective when making a decision whether to violate someones rights. 

My question is serious because you think since HI's red flag law allows the defendant to defend themself AFTER their 2A right is taken away, it's "due process". Even though they had no idea it was about to happen. 

Thanks for playing and trying to sound smart. Case law is black and white as it has been thru the court system and all the "small details" have been presented.  So this is not an example you can use.

yea...not hanging out with you people..

Let's have a BBQ and bring our chairs.  And something to drink.  Might be a while.

Didn't say any such thing. Neither the constitution nor case law is able to provide directions for cops in every possible situation they may face. So they have to take what they have and try to make the best decision possible. And until the SCOTUS rules on something there often isn't any clear answer. That is why you can have one circuit court say a particular search is legal while another says it is illegal. I will give you an example, imagine your yard has a 5 foot fence. A 5 foot cop comes along and wants to see into your yard so he stands on a box and sees drugs in your yard. Illegal search. However if a 6 foot officer comes along and can see over your fence without having to stand on anything his observations would be legal. Not saying it is ok to violate constitutional rights, I am explaining to you that what is constitutional or unconstitutional often is not clear or obvious.

As I pointed out to Flapp, if you get arrested for an alleged crime you don't have a hearing before you get arrested. Same with a involuntary mental health evaluation.

I don't think we should BBQ.

Let's scratch that idea.

I'll just do as OF and buy some more popcorn.

I would come, just not interact with certain people. Esp that guy who has Tourette's.