Let me ask you something: Does a person who expects to be heard, who has the power and/or assumes the authority to impose some consequence upon those who either defy, disbelieve, ignore or "misconstrue" (as in take literally, for example, which is after all, a more accurate mindset and which is also why I will KEEP misconstrue in quotation marks, as that description is but one manifestion of neurotypical prejudice - and assumed privilige!) his words (and/or orders) have the right to be immoral? Untruthful? Ever?
How about in that circumstance in which he is expecting such obedience, reverence and/or compliance?
Now - what if this guy is a cop? And what if he just *expects* you to "get" his meaning and not "antagonize" him or his fellow officers? What if, let's say, he is ambiguous at best in his instructions. Even more - what if his and others' words directly contradict each other or even yet a third or more persons?
Continuing - what if the legality of those instructions is normally nonexistant, but may have been rendered so legal under some order that itself was illegally conceived and drawn up ex post facto?
Is such an order - to obey the directions that haven't been legally authorized - and the citizen's understandable confusion over said order and subsequent ATTEMPT to question and clarify what the officer was saying, all done with the respect and even tone of a guy who's about pissing his pants about the trouble he seems to be in and which he can't for the life of him understand - GROUNDS FOR ARREST???
In other words, is it lawful to arrest somebody for trying to clarify an officer's orders, and answering that officer's questions honestly, AND because he "disobeyed" an order that was never, ever presented to him, and in spite of the fact (and it is truly and ironically *documented* fact) that the document with which he was supposed to be complying was only ever even DRAFTED and signed (by one officer Christopher O'Sullivan of the Massasoit Community College Police Department) AFTER said arrest?
Is it constitutional to detain somebody and ask him many questions, some confusing, and mock him! (asked the arrestee if he had ever been suicidal, and upon arrestee's affirmative answer, had the fucking gall to ask "what happened"? - DUH!!!!!!!!!!!) and only after over an hour in said "custody" words to that effect were even used when said arrestee, who had been uncuffed so that the officer could accompany him to the ATM so that he could withdraw some money ($50) to give to some guy who wouldn't show up for yet another hour or so, was in the process of being cuffed to the radiator yet again, uttered "you've gotta be kidding me" - O'Sullivan's reply being something to the effect of "Hey, you're in my custody, so..." - and not Mirandize him until after all this time and goings on, at which point he clumsily and nervously began "Uh...wait...be quiet...no...just be quiet for a sec....You have the right to remain silent..."
How 'bout this, then? Is it right that a person so arrested and charged is further extorted (beyond the fifty bucks he never saw again!) into agreeing to a plea/arrangement of "stay off the property for six months and pay fifty bucks sound fair?" (spoken from one slimeball personnel to his Chesterfield phlegmball hacking counterpart) under the threat that "Ya wanna spend Thanksgiving in county? Cause if you wanna fight this we can do that..."
No - he did not want to spend Thanksgiving in "county". No - he did NOT have several hundred dollars an hour to spend paying somebody to help him get out of a mess that was not of his own making to begin with - who said justice is free? (I wish he'd appear right in front of me now so that I could stab him in the heart like his precious lady liberty has stabbed me in the back!) - and he did not want to roll the dice and see if the guy with the gavel wasn't as stupid and mean and as much of an asshole as the guy with the gun.
Tell me if you wonder how such a thing could happen in America - hell in any decent society - but America especially because these very principles are the ESSENCE of who we are as a people, it is what many have died for defending (and not all who have died in battle were defending such important ideals!) - it is what is SO vitally important to us that our forefathers battled a frontier as long and wet and deep as any men before them, and then took over the land on which they came to rest.
It is the ideals that *transcend* our own forefathers occasional folly, but which they upheld as righteously as they thought they were being, that DO count and matter as much today as they ever have - in ours or any other society in human history.
Or at least they SHOULD matter.
But then - *this* citizen has learned that the ideals are a mere slogan that does not really apply in the day to day shit that is governance and corruption.
At least if we had ONE system - the rules could be known and understood by everyone who calls himself a citizen of this country. But the hayseeds and survivalists and local bubbas insist they have the right to do things "their way".
Really? How come I wasn't taught this in school? How come I and everybody else has to learn the "real world" ex post facto??
Can you answer that for me? Then get the hell off of your pedestal and restore my rights!