Woman sues cop who asked for date after giving ticket

Since there is no legal definition of "Troll Baby," it follows that you are simply making up casuist designations that can be discarded as vacuous.

Thanks for playing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, but like the Supremes said, I know it when I see it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And the rest of us know stalking and invasion of privacy when we see it, no matter what the law demands in order to hand down a conviction. This being why it is inane for you to attempt the derail into purely legalistic definitions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Really, after all the legal discussions on this thread you claim it's a derail to point out that what he did doesn't meet the legal definitions of either invasion of privacy or stalking?

Because that's what you want to constantly claim he did to justify your demand for harsh treatment.

Right.

ROTFLMAO

 

Doubt me all you like, but why would I lie? What would I gain from such a lie?

Meanwhile, what is the basis for your surety there? You've never seen me, so it can't be that you are certain that I'm insufficiently attractive to elicit such responses. Was there something incredible about the events I related? Do you just not believe that some women issue unsolicited love notes of that type?

Or are you just siezing on any possible opportunity to take a shot at me, regardless of whether it has any defensible basis whatsoever?

 

That's what I said, isn't it? The fact that you keep trying to reduce the issue down into strictly legal questions is just that, regardless of whatever other conversations about DPPA and so on also occured.

I've repeatedly made it clear to you that my moral calculus here is about more than strictly legalistic questions. I also made a point of clarifying this to pandaemonium, since he was pushing this thread towards a narrow legalistic framing as well. So, no, I'm not going to go along with your convenient attempt to dodge the basic issues by reducing them into questions of law. That's a derail that you want us to follow you down because it suits your craven approach - and so something I will resist vehemently.

Anyway, is this the best you've got? Because it's pretty obvious that you're just trying to fool yourself so you can declare victory and go home, at this point. All the childish shots make that really clear.

 

http://music.yahoo.com/videos/BradPaisley/Online--44943552

 

Tough.

We have laws so we don't have to deal with whatever happens to be your moral calculus.

And the laws specifically define what it means to be a stalker and to invade ones' privacy and so if you DO use these LEGAL terms then you do need to stick to the LEGAL definitions.

 

So, indeed, you are simply flaming me, in the cheapest way possible.

Good for you. Does wonders for your credibility as a moral authority. Makes all those naked assertions you traffic in really compelling.

 

Nope, you asked why and I gave you a reason why.

 

Don't be silly. The legal system is hardly the exclusive means of moral ajudication in our society, nor was it ever intended to be. And I've already listed for you several mechanisms through which said moral justice can be served, which are more likely than a jury trial even occurring in this case.

Trial in the public eye and social media is another such means, while we're on the topic.

Don't be asinine. "Stalking" and "invasion of privacy" are not strictly legal terms. Those are regular, general-purpose terms that have regular meanings not bound by any legalistic reasoning. It's not like we're using the term "habeas corpus" or something. I didn't say he broke any laws against stalking - and in fact I was quite clear about the distinction between "stalking," writ large, and the relevant statutes. So there is no credibility to your claim to have been confused or misled - you are intentionally trying to limit the conversation to legal definitions for purely tactical reasons, as already noted, and no amount of browbeating is going to cause me to go along with that ploy.

So, you can take your phony outrage over this asinine quibble, and go fly a kite.

 

And that "reason" was a prejudicial, negative, and totally unfounded attribution of character, physical attractiveness and social standing. I.e., flaming, in the cheapest possible terms.

But what's perhaps more telling, here, is that your response seems to be premised on the idea that my description of having been stalked was supposed to be some kind of braggadocio on my part - an attempt at self-aggrandizement. Hence your need to attack it in the most sneering, vacuous manner possible. But, this is bizarre: the point was to relate how creepy it was to be the victim of such unwanted attentions. That you would interpret it in the opposite way suggests something about your attitude towards the victim in this case: you are, perhaps, jealous of her, for being, presumably, attractive enough to solicit this kind of attention from strangers. And so you are outraged that she would be ungrateful for her luck at such, and instead seek redress against the poor soul who dared express his attraction for her. Perhaps you even identify with the shlub who stalked her (other than as an authority figure, that is) - have you been spurned by attractive women that you directed unwanted sexual attention towards, in your past?

I would point out that being the object of a stalker's attentions is no guarantee that one is particularly attractive, at least in any general, conventional sense. It just means that you peak the interest of that one - screwy, presumably - stalker.

 

You DO realise that there is more than 1 kind of sanction this asshole could face don't you?

There is a reason why in Victoria for instance "internal affairs" is called the Victoria Polices Office of Ethical Standards. In other states its the office of police integrity.

Ie whether your right or wrong about the legal sanctions this cop SHOULD face, he still has to face the internal disciplinary committee of his department and they don't CARE about the law, they are interested in the ETHICS of the department. All they need to take action including dumping his worthless ass is a "charge" of "bringing the department into disrepute" and there is virtually NO way he could get out of that one

 

Come on, he should be given a talking to by his superior and be done with it. Who's talking about 5 years in Prison??? Jesus F Christ you'd think the man raped her. Her overreaction is her problem and she should probably talk to someone about it.

 

Which it clearly was.

Nope, I just find your desperate attempts at rationalizing your posts a tad pathetic.

Nope.
I just don't find a single polite letter left on her car threatening.

And legally it's neither stalking or an invasion of privacy.

 

Yes, and I've said he should told don't do it again and maybe take a refresher course on the relevant material at the police academy on his own time, but considering that he only left one letter, that he didn't threaten her or stalk her or do anything to coerce her, I think that should be sufficient.

The penalty should be reasonably proportionate to the action.

 

She volunteered directly and indirectly. Indirectly, because we've all agreed in this democracy that speeding is not ok and those who speed need to fork over their identity. Directly, because she did speed, and she knew she'd be giving up her anonymity this way. By choice, she made this a personal situation.

The intent behind privacy when it comes to dmv records is to keep what is hidden hidden. But, if it's publically available, you cannot violate what is already public. It's the information that is private that makes the crime, not the process of using a record. The record doesn't represent private information, becauses the information is public by her own choice. If you are only concerned with rules, you may miss the substance on which a rule was based. If that substance is not there, then the rule is baseless. At times, circumstance can bring exceptions to many things.

Becuase the situation is between two humans, there is no way to avoid it becoming personal. That is something we give up when we decide to interact with each other. If you want pure formality, a computer AI program may give you this.

I want people to have the right to ask a person out in such situations, one because this is a normal thing for huamsn and no one can prove there is harm or a threat. I think anyone who wants to make it crime, is someone who is a person who imposes there sense of morality on others and by result becomes a criminal because they will punish the innocent. Our culture takes a hit if they win, because we become a bunch of stiffs. It's disgusting. Let people be people.

 

This and That

You keep repeating, insisting on, the adjective, "polite", without addressing the fact that others might disagree. As I noted, as dumb pick-up lines go, that note is full of them.

I would like to know what is so polite about cheap pick-up lines.

• • •​

Astounding.

You don't really understand the DPPA, do you?

If what you say is correct, then the DPPA is a useless, extraneous law.

When you hand over your ID at the club entrance, it is not so the bouncer can find you later and hit on you.

When you fill out your name and address on an insurance form, it's not so the underwriter can devise cheap pick-up lines.

When you give your driver's license to a cop who has pulled you over for a traffic infraction, it is a matter of state business, not personal.

Does the word "professionalism" mean anything to you?

Only in romantic comedies to people get jobs specifically to hit on people.

So it really is about being able to hit on people?

Asking someone out is not a crime. Using information attained in state business in order to hit on someone is the problem here.

Seriously, if Collins had seen her a couple days later in the mall, and asked her out while she was waiting in line for a pretzel, or something, we would probably never have heard of it, and if we did, it would just be something to laugh at for its roco stupidity.

That you cannot separate professional responsibility from personal desire is your own issue. Indeed, it seems a vital reason why you are not able to look at the question of the law alleged to be violated.

"No harm, no foul," is, in the first place, subjective insofar as where Collins and, apparently, many others are puzzled as to the notion of harm in this situation. To another, of course, is the practical implication.

For instance, speeding; it is, after all, a central question as you've framed it. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, speeding killed 10,951 people in 2009, accounting for 31% of traffic crash fatalities that year. But if we apply the "no harm, no foul" standard, then why ticket anyone for speeding until they run into something as a result of excessive speed?

By your logic, it doesn't matter if Ms. Paredes was breaking the law; Officer Collins should not have stopped her. You know—no harm, no foul.

Which kind of undermines your whole, "She was asking for it," argument.

So ... the idea of professional responsibility degrades our culture?

Or ... people don't have enough opportunities to hit on one another?

I would counter with the proposition that if we are, culturally, so desperate for dates that we have to break laws or sack professional responsibility in order to find someone to ask out, we've already done the damage.
____________________

Notes:

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. "Q&A: Speed and speed limits". May, 2011. IIHS.org. January 7, 2012. http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/speed_limits.html

 

The previous situations cannot totally strip the personal aspect in them. People can be so subtle that a simple micro-expression could violate the premise you are using on which to base your argument.

I think what is happening here is that you are using cultural and moral attitudes, but not everyone shares that attitude. I think it's okay to have your point of view, but I don't agree it should be imposed upon others as crime.

A threat is also a harm, and speeding is a threat. The roads are eniginered in such a way that a speed limit must be set to take into conditions that normally occur and sometimes rarely occur. We don't wait for the condition to occur where speeders cannot stop an imminent collision, whereas if the conditions occur under or at the speed limit the collision could be avoided. The harm in a threatening situation is when we have to go out of our way to defend. That's an unnessary cost.

All though there was no harm it seems you might agree, then we must show conditions of threat. Speed limits in residential areas are set for the occasion for example when a child may run into the street, or a doggy. We cannot set the limit so high that we may not be able to stop. What immininent collision, and what circumstance creates a imminent danger like in speed that justifies sayign that the officer created a real threat to her?

You will convince me if you can show me this clearly. You will have my condition that he committed a crime because a creim to me is either actual harm or a significant threat of harm. I'm not into moral legistlation or democratic preference legislation, etc.

No. You wouldn't believe the idiots that use that word. It's lost a lot of meaning to me over the years. I think people just use it to sound, well uh, professional. But they are not!

But really, I think persoanlizing my mocha at Starbucks is professonal. I love it when cute girls flirt, we know it doesn't mean anything. And when it does, it's okay. I believe this is how we are as humans. As long as you do it harmlessly and without serious threat and you don't waste too much company or government time, why should we really care?