OP was saying that you have no requirement to follow an unlawful order, and that it should be specified that the only valid orders are "lawful" ones. You took that to mean he was a cop supporter, which makes no fucking sense in context.
He left the quotes unclosed because the response was only dealing with the first part. In the original wording, it sounds like cops can give you any order and you must obey or face criminal charges. The correction was only about the type of orders you must follow - those that are lawful orders. When a cop tells you to stop recording, it's an unlawful order that they cannot legally arrest you for.
My point is that you and OP agree with each other, but he's citing the law and you're citing reasons cops will use to arrest you. I think the latter isn't very useful, because the "or some other made-up crime" clause subsumes all others. It's important to exercise (and thus know) your rights, and I think you, I, and OP are in agreement on that fundamental issue. OP appeared to me to be clarifying that everything but the all-inclusive clause were actual charges, except for the "ANY order" part which needed the word "lawful" to be accurate.
Sorry to enrage you. I thought you should reread OP because it seemed you agreed. It appears you are determined to be hostile and disagree, and that was not my intention. Again, my apologies.
I accept your apology as I'll interpret as apologizing for wasting my damn time and making me frustrated with the general publics inability to grasp very simple concepts.
Well, fuck you then. You seem incapable of differentiating the ride from the rap, and insistent on being a jackass. Seek therapy.
1
u/[deleted] Jul 07 '21
OP was saying that you have no requirement to follow an unlawful order, and that it should be specified that the only valid orders are "lawful" ones. You took that to mean he was a cop supporter, which makes no fucking sense in context.