View Single Post
  #5  
Old October 6th 08, 02:18 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
Brent P[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,639
Default Just let them do it without saying a word or else.

On 2008-10-05, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:

> (So if someone passed me while I was waiting for a parking spot and pulled
> in first, I would certainly have a very low opinion of them but then again
> if someone is that inconsiderate, it's probably also not a good idea to
> provoke them with angry speech or profanity.


That's just let them do it in a nutshell. Be affraid, be scared, don't
'provoke' people by reacting. Which is bizarre, because one doesn't
provoke with a reaction.

> driving. A good long honk of the horn might be called for, but again if they
> are that dangerous in their driving then it's probably also not a good idea
> to provoke them with angry speech or profanity.)


The key to just let them do it is being affraid of other people. This
only enables those who are aggressive. Under this rule, why not cut off
other people? Why not be a total and complete aggressive arsehole?
Afterall what you're arguing here is to back down and never even voice
disapproval out of fear. It's writing a blank check to the aggressive.
It just creates a sense of entitlement. Then it's monkey see, monkey do,
as people see what behaviors are being rewarded.

> Certainly not the worst of profane words, but it's profanity nevertheless
> and maybe could even eventually escalate to a road rage type of incident of
> some type if the profanity ends up getting a followup verbal response.


To me this sounds like gun control 'logic' applied to speach.

> If he was out of his car, presumably, he had already found another parking
> space. So then cop says he *could* be arrested, and the guy doesn't leave
> well enough alone and argues with the cop? How STUPID is that? Just
> apologize to the officer and then let it be. (As I read it, the arrest
> didn't occur until after the argument and backup was called.)


Just lick the boots of the guy in the government issued costume? Cops
are not our masters and it's not 'stupid' to argue with them, one just
has to understand what they really are.

> That means the settlement probably came down to the police officer's arrest
> technique, as in had the police officer not used a technique that was
> contrary to his training, it's likely that the city would have not had to
> settle at all.


Cities make all sorts of absurd behaviors policies as if that makes it
okay.


Ads