What should be the generic term used to describe a pretextual reason given to violate the spirit of the law:
15:27 | Ray McGovern:
.. happened to us in 2011. Yeah. 15 years ago actually, when we outfitted and registered in the United States what we called the US boat to Gaza, it was under Obama. So we called it the audacity of hope. Okay. And we were ready to sail out of the harbor in Pereus outside of Athens. And we did sail even though at the last minute the Greek authorities said, “No, you can’t sail because there’s a defect in your air conditioning system.” Right. Okay. So we had a council of war. We said, “Let’s go anyway.” And we did. We get nine nautical miles out of the port of Pereas when the ninja turtle, the the the Greek in this case, not Israeli patrol boat surrounded us. An hour standoff. They were very apologetic. Look, we’re just following orders, but you got to turn around. You got to we faced them down for a whole hour. And then the then the captain said, “They’re about to board us.” So, we turned around. They seized the boat. We spent the next two weeks trying to get the captain out of jail.
QUESTIONS:
Have you been give a pre-textual reason by law enforcement? How did it make you feel about law-enforcement?
Does law enforcement need to retain the ability to use pre-textual charges to do their job?
Isn’t this essentially the ability to make up phony excuses to do what otherwise would be prohibited?
Are pretextal reasons inextricable from the law enforcement job? What would be the cost if steps were to be taken to limit such power?