Which brings up the notion of "Might is right!" and everyone seems to like that one.
I think not being aggressive is the key in moving forward. A tattooed person pointing a gun at me will never have me comply, regardless of the uniform they are wearing which I'm meant to be scared of, and anyone suggesting so should experience it first-hand so that they can agree with me (Should they need to).
Everyone will all calm down eventually, well, whoever is left of them.
Your literally espousing "Might is right" as soon as you see a tattoo.
That's retarded on a lot of levels. What people are trying to say is that in most modern western countries, it is the law that we live under which compels our compliance with the police. You've actually gone further and said you will openly refuse to comply with people with tattoos, which is such an arbitrary standard it is utterly comical.
Even from a position of tactical awareness, compliance can't be ruled off the table for a genuine attack; let alone any normal police interaction.
No one is agreeing with you, because each one of us knows what the consequences are of choosing to violently resist literally all people with tattoos 100% of the time, even cops. That's why we don't want to experience it first hand. Experiencing it first had will simply reinforce our position, as it will lead to the violence we predict. It will cause us to disagree with you further, because we are correct in what we expect to have happen.
Even if you say that you are not going to be aggressive, if you are permanently refusing to comply with the police just because you saw a tattoo, you will inevitably use violence to resist your arrest. This will include violence against the police, correctional staff, judges, the bailiffs, etc; because somewhere down the line, even if the person you are immediately resisting doesn't have a tattoo, they will be operating as part of an institution where someone with a tattoo gave you an order and so their collective force flows from that. Inevitably, you'll end up getting yourself killed, probably by trying to grab a cop's gun in a prison while hand-cuffed; all because a cop with a tattoo told you to step out of a car as you are legally required to do so.
Your position is a deranged one.
Now, if you would like a less deranged position, you should just demand that police departments don't hire people with tattoos. It's still stupid because a tattooed criminal can still kill you for you refusing to comply with his orders while you are in an ambush; but at least you will have come down from full-on fed-poster, to internet macho-man.
Dom, if all you get from being told to leave a car from someone holding a gun on you when you don't seem to be doing anything wrong and asking why is that they have tattoos and a uniform then perhaps you've missed the point here.
The man at the driving wheel with the door open and complying up until that point has visible tattoos.
It's the gun and the uniform, before the visible tattoos on the person insisting - without explanation, that the driver of the car "Get out of the car" which is the problem. The fact that they have visible tattoos (Or are a woman) are secondary at best.
And the reason that nobody is agreeing with me is because I'm happy to talk to you away from the main swarm of people wanting to see what's 'New' here. I don't need upvotes or others' opinions on what is clear as day a flex by an authoritarian wannabe.
And yes, up until now I was talking about this supposed 'police officer'.
When did British law get binned?
That's my argument.
Your concept of British Law was already binned by the British much more aggressively.
Which brings up the notion of "Might is right!" and everyone seems to like that one.
I think not being aggressive is the key in moving forward. A tattooed person pointing a gun at me will never have me comply, regardless of the uniform they are wearing which I'm meant to be scared of, and anyone suggesting so should experience it first-hand so that they can agree with me (Should they need to).
Everyone will all calm down eventually, well, whoever is left of them.
Your literally espousing "Might is right" as soon as you see a tattoo.
That's retarded on a lot of levels. What people are trying to say is that in most modern western countries, it is the law that we live under which compels our compliance with the police. You've actually gone further and said you will openly refuse to comply with people with tattoos, which is such an arbitrary standard it is utterly comical.
Even from a position of tactical awareness, compliance can't be ruled off the table for a genuine attack; let alone any normal police interaction.
No one is agreeing with you, because each one of us knows what the consequences are of choosing to violently resist literally all people with tattoos 100% of the time, even cops. That's why we don't want to experience it first hand. Experiencing it first had will simply reinforce our position, as it will lead to the violence we predict. It will cause us to disagree with you further, because we are correct in what we expect to have happen.
Even if you say that you are not going to be aggressive, if you are permanently refusing to comply with the police just because you saw a tattoo, you will inevitably use violence to resist your arrest. This will include violence against the police, correctional staff, judges, the bailiffs, etc; because somewhere down the line, even if the person you are immediately resisting doesn't have a tattoo, they will be operating as part of an institution where someone with a tattoo gave you an order and so their collective force flows from that. Inevitably, you'll end up getting yourself killed, probably by trying to grab a cop's gun in a prison while hand-cuffed; all because a cop with a tattoo told you to step out of a car as you are legally required to do so.
Your position is a deranged one.
Now, if you would like a less deranged position, you should just demand that police departments don't hire people with tattoos. It's still stupid because a tattooed criminal can still kill you for you refusing to comply with his orders while you are in an ambush; but at least you will have come down from full-on fed-poster, to internet macho-man.
Dom, if all you get from being told to leave a car from someone holding a gun on you when you don't seem to be doing anything wrong and asking why is that they have tattoos and a uniform then perhaps you've missed the point here.
The man at the driving wheel with the door open and complying up until that point has visible tattoos.
It's the gun and the uniform, before the visible tattoos on the person insisting - without explanation, that the driver of the car "Get out of the car" which is the problem. The fact that they have visible tattoos (Or are a woman) are secondary at best.
And the reason that nobody is agreeing with me is because I'm happy to talk to you away from the main swarm of people wanting to see what's 'New' here. I don't need upvotes or others' opinions on what is clear as day a flex by an authoritarian wannabe.
And yes, up until now I was talking about this supposed 'police officer'.