Police Are Fun

[JDTC]

Originally Posted by stolz25

Well as long as the ends justify the means huh?

No.

Originally Posted by stolz25

You know, I could make the exact same argument had the cop shot him in the leg.

I guess you could, yeah. That didn't happen, however. If he had been shot, I wouldn't be defending the cops. He was tased. He wasn't injured (the video shows him walking away of his own volition). I don't know what you would have preferred happen.

Originally Posted by stolz25

Sure. Apparently as long as he got warned and was acting like an idiot it's cool to do whatever since "he had it coming".

He had a choice to prevent this and he flagrantly ignored it. Nothing here happened that he could have prevented.

Originally Posted by stolz25

That a tazer is less lethal (note, not non-lethal) is what makes the difference? How about if he broke his knee with a bat? That would have diffused the situation in an absolutely non-lethal way.

It seems like tasing was the quickest, easiest, and least injurious way to end the situation. Again, I don't know what your resolution would have been.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by JDTC

It seems like tasing was the quickest, easiest, and least injurious way to end the situation. Again, I don't know what your resolution would have been.

Tackling him is how it's been handled for 100 years...why change now? He's not Usain Bolt. They had 5 guys out there. They could have gotten him with a little patience.

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

They had 5 guys out there. They could have gotten him with a little patience.

Not to mention he was headed back for the stands by the time the cop actually got close enough to tase him.

[god is dead]

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

The fact is, whether you choose to believe it or not, is that some police abuse their authority. Sometimes police forget that their job is to enforce the law by making an arrest or writing a citation....not decide the person is guilty and punish them. That is what the judge is for.
And for every instance of excessive force caught on camera, there are 100 more that no one sees.
I'm not saying all police abuse their authority, but the ones that do usually get away with it. I've watched enough episodes of "Cops" to know that if you try to outrun a cop, and he catches up with you, you are going to get roughed up at best. Police are supposed to act like professionals. Some do and some don't.
Oh, and the idea of innocent until proven guilty is complete bullshit. You don't taser an innocent man.
Sometimes It may be the least injurious way of getting control of a suspect who is resisting arrest. But many times it's used because the cop is pissed off at the suspect for whatever reason.

Couldn't have summed up a better argument myself.

[stolz25]

Video: Motorcyclist arrested for recording cop brandishing gun with helmet cam [*UPDATED] — Autoblog

Cop jumps out of an unmarked car in plain clothes brandishing a weapon and only later identifies himself as a cop to this guy on the motorcycle. Then when the guy posts the Youtube video of the cop looking like an ass they show up at his door 10 days later to confiscate the video and arrest him.

Also might as well throw this one in.

2 more Pr. George's officers suspended over beating at U-Md.

Maryland police beat the crap out of some unarmed kid who was running around after the Duke basketball game. They originally charged him with assault but you can plainly see from the video he did nothing except possibly mouth off to one of them. A few of the cops have been suspended, but of course if any normal person did this they'd be in jail and you have to have completely irrefutable evidence against a cop before they'll take any action whatsoever.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

The older I get, the more and more I begin to feel that most cops are just A-type assholes who probably shouldn't have guns or any type of legal authority whatsoever.

Added: Just wanted to add that the second video regarding the Maryland student is outrageous.

[The Great Catpiss]

Saw this one as a link on one of those sites...
Video: Kids arrested for using SUV to waterski on Tennessee floodwaters — Autoblog

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

Added: Just wanted to add that the second video regarding the Maryland student is outrageous.

While the actions of the Maryland police are worse by far, what worried me more about the first video was that several states have laws on the books preventing video taping that are interpreted to cover cops as well. Since it usually takes a video to prove a bad cop these states make it nearly impossible.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by stolz25

While the actions of the Maryland police are worse by far, what worried me more about the first video was that several states have laws on the books preventing video taping that are interpreted to cover cops as well. Since it usually takes a video to prove a bad cop these states make it nearly impossible.

Yeah, that is troubling. I am guessing the police lobby works against those laws' repeal every time a local legislator brings the idea up, too.

On a personal note, I know police have a dangerous job that needs to be performed in our society, but I really don't like them. A lot of them are good people, but I think the majority abuse their power and act like asses.

The second video is an obvious example of that. The first video is too. Instead of brandishing his service-pistol, he should have brandished his badge first. In either case, being in plain clothes and in his private vehicle, I'd be very reluctant to believe he was a cop. I'm not sure what I'd do if confronted with the situation, but escaping and physical confrontation would definitely be on my mind unless and until a uniformed officer appeared. Might get me into more trouble in the end, but I'd rather take my chances than be a victim of a thug pretending to be a legit cop.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by The Great Catpiss

Saw this one as a link on one of those sites...
Video: Kids arrested for using SUV to waterski on Tennessee floodwaters — Autoblog

Well at least these cops didn't beat them, take out their guns, or otherwise act like unprofessional jackasses. They actually had probable cause to arrest. The stunt the kids pulled off is a violation of numerous likely statutes (trespass, reckless operation of a motor vehicle, etc.). That being side, the stunt is pretty funny. That being said, how did they not see the cops in para-SWAT gear watching them? Those cops were there pretty quickly, so it is obvious they saw the whole thing. I am guessing the police cars were there too. How did the kids not see them? Dopes.

[The Great Catpiss]

Originally Posted by stolz25

While the actions of the Maryland police are worse by far, what worried me more about the first video was that several states have laws on the books preventing video taping that are interpreted to cover cops as well. Since it usually takes a video to prove a bad cop these states make it nearly impossible.

Oh yeah, I was going to comment on that. The police are allowed to record you, but you can't record them? That seems backwards

We should be allowed to record any public servants who are on the clock (vs. on break or off duty).

[The Great Catpiss]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

Well at least these cops didn't beat them, take out their guns, or otherwise act like unprofessional jackasses. They actually had probable cause to arrest. The stunt the kids pulled off is a violation of numerous likely statutes (trespass, reckless operation of a motor vehicle, etc.). That being side, the stunt is pretty funny. That being said, how did they not see the cops in para-SWAT gear watching them? Those cops were there pretty quickly, so it is obvious they saw the whole thing. I am guessing the police cars were there too. How did the kids not see them? Dopes.

Yeah, I just thought it was a fun video. Those kids could be putting themselves and others in danger. Then again, I'd think there would be more pressing stuff for the cops to deal with during such a disaster...

[JDTC]

Originally Posted by stolz25

Video: Motorcyclist arrested for recording cop brandishing gun with helmet cam [*UPDATED] — Autoblog

Cop jumps out of an unmarked car in plain clothes brandishing a weapon and only later identifies himself as a cop to this guy on the motorcycle. Then when the guy posts the Youtube video of the cop looking like an ass they show up at his door 10 days later to confiscate the video and arrest him.

Well, what the fuck? If some car pulled over, and a pissed off looking dude burst out the door and pulled a fucking gun, I mean... What the hell was this guy thinking? He's wearing jeans and a jacket and driving his own car and decides its a good idea to pull his gun on somebody before even identifying himself?

He should lose his job.

[Laz777]

I think some people need to stop making excuses for the police. It used to be that there were a few bad apples, now there are only a few good apples among a spoiled and rotting bushel. Codes and statutes are not laws, they are enforced through color of law. If any code or statute is in conflict with the State constitutions and the Constitution for the United States then those codes/statutes are unlawful. The mess we're in right now is very intricate and very hard to understand. The average citizen hasn't got a chance. Pretty much everything our so-called government is doing is unlawful and fraudulent. But most people have no clue because the system was designed to hide the truth from us. When you enter "a court of law" (what a joke!) and you hear what sounds like the English language don't be fooled, it isn't English, it's Legalese, a language created by the Law Society of England. You cannot win, when you think you've won you still haven't won. They have a monopoly on arbitration, there is no justice in the corporate judicial system.

-Laz.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Laz777

Codes and statutes are not laws...

-Laz.

You sound like TheZion.

Crazy much?

BTW: "Legalese" isn't that difficult to understand if you take an hour to plug through Black's.

[Laz777]

Thanks for calling me crazy, when people call other people names instead of debating whether or not they are wrong it means the have already lost the argument. Please, please, tell me where I am wrong? I'm familiar with Black's Law Dictionary also and reading a definition isn't going to enlighten anyone to the fraud that has been committed. You live in a box my friend where as I would rather breathe the fresh air. I'm neither a Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, I'm just an individual that wants the opportunity to live a free life. I think it is repugnant to govern the people by the barrel of a gun. The Declaration of Independence explains it very well. In order to be governed the government must have the consent of the people, collectively or individually. If I cause no harm to other people or their property then it is my right to live in freedom and be left alone by thugs and robbers.

BTW: "Legalese" isn't that difficult to understand if you take an hour to plug through Black's.

That was a monumentally ignorant statement to make. If what you say is true then why do lawyers spend eight years learning their trade?

-Laz.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Laz777

Thanks for calling me crazy, when people call other people names instead of debating whether or not they are wrong it means the have already lost the argument.

And you say I am the one in the box, yet you're the one wrapping yourself in a flag of witticisms.

Originally Posted by Laz777

Please, please, tell me where I am wrong?

Try a dictionary?

Code and statute.

Originally Posted by Laz777

I'm familiar with Black's Law Dictionary also and reading a definition isn't going to enlighten anyone to the fraud that has been committed.

Right. Is this the game where you pretend everyone else is blind to the truth but you and you say you are the only one who can save us, yet provide no substantive facts to lend credit to your argument? I think it is. Just so you know, that game sucks; your side is always a terrible player.

Originally Posted by Laz777

You live in a box my friend where as I would rather breathe the fresh air.

Oh yeah, def. heard that before from Mosheh. Oh, and by the way, without codes and statutes (i.e., "laws") that restrict peoples' freedom to pollute the air, that air you're breathing may not be as fresh. Just saying.

Originally Posted by Laz777

I'm neither a Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, I'm just an individual that wants the opportunity to live a free life.

That's nice. Unfortunately for you, neither the federal government nor the States have ever provided the citizens of this country, white men or otherwise, with "a free life" the likes of which you have concocted in your mind. In fact, the States have always had restrictice police powers and the federal constitution was designed to keep "free" people on the sidelines of federal power, hence why the only democratic portion (originally) of the government was the House of Representatives.

Originally Posted by Laz777

I think it is repugnant to govern the people by the barrel of a gun.

That's nice. So do I.

Originally Posted by Laz777

The Declaration of Independence explains it very well. In order to be governed the government must have the consent of the people, collectively or individually. If I cause no harm to other people or their property then it is my right to live in freedom and be left alone by thugs and robbers.

I think you are misconstruing the meaning of the document.

Originally Posted by Laz777

That was a monumentally ignorant statement to make. If what you say is true then why do lawyers spend eight years learning their trade?

Easy answer: We don't. So what were you saying about monumentally ignorant statements again?

[Laz777]

And you say I am the one in the box, yet you're the one wrapping yourself in a flag of witticisms.

Another ad hominem, nice going.

Right. Is this the game where you pretend everyone else is blind to the truth but you and you say you are the only one who can save us, yet provide no substantive facts to lend credit to your argument? I think it is. Just so you know, that game sucks; your side is always a terrible player.

No, this isn't a game and I never claimed to be anyone's savior. I've looked at things from your perspective just as I've looked at it from the "left". After that I looked at the issues without political goggles, I just looked at things for what they were. Anyone can looks at the results and make judgments based on the results, you don't have to be a historian or a political scholar to see fraud and malfeasance everywhere you look.

You're using sophistry to prove what? That the names you have called me accurately portray who I am and the views I hold?

What point am I trying to prove?

Oh yeah, def. heard that before from Mosheh. Oh, and by the way, without codes and statutes (i.e., "laws") that restrict peoples' freedom to pollute the air, that air you're breathing may not be as fresh. Just saying.

Red herring. next...

That's nice. Unfortunately for you, neither the federal government nor the States have ever provided the citizens of this country, white men or otherwise, with "a free life" the likes of which you have concocted in your mind. In fact, the States have always had restrictice police powers and the federal constitution was designed to keep "free" people on the sidelines of federal power, hence why the only democratic portion (originally) of the government was the House of Representatives.

Apparently you missed the point, purposely most likely, a reasonable assumption on my part. You equate "a free life" with material abundance supplied by the government when that was not anywhere near what I meant and you know it. You're playing the game you've been taught to play but you'll eventually realize how serious the game is and know that politics as usual will not suffice. All men are created for freedom, as long as they do not cause harm to other people or their property then they should be able to live their lives in peace. That means minimal government interference in their lives, free from coercion, extortion, involuntary servitude, etc., etc., i.e., no slavery or forced taxation in the name of the fictional "greater good".

That's nice. So do I.

I doubt that severely. If you want to take from me to give to another then you're definitely not familiar with the concept of liberty.

I think you are misconstruing the meaning of the document.

I bet you do. So did George the III, the King of England. You seem to be a bit lost my friend. To be free means you are your own sovereign, a sovereign without subjects. This means when King George's Armies were defeated by the people of America everyone became political equals, everyone was a sovereign. One man couldn't force another man to do anything against his will, that is freedom. Might does not make right. Can I go next door to my neighbor and demand he pay me a certain sum of money because I have the gun? If I cannot do such a thing then my government cannot do such a thing. Our government was created to be very limited in its powers because the founders understood what government really was; brute force. Why would any sane group of free, sovereign people allow something they created together rule over them? How can the creation tell the creator what to do? Our forefathers knew this principle well and did what they could to slow down what they knew we would eventually face, a tyrannical government.

Jefferson said "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” Who do you think Jefferson was talking about when he said "they"? Was he referring to the British? No, Jefferson was referring to our own government.

The Constitution can be easily understood by the slowest of men and women. It needs no group of special interpreters or some intellectual elite to tell us what it means. It is not an enigma or a mystery, it is clear in its meaning. Anyone that tells you otherwise is a liar and wants to keep you on your knees.

Easy answer: We don't. So what were you saying about monumentally ignorant statements again?

Whatever, you should be a politician. You can't even admit when you're wrong.

-Laz.












-Laz.

[stolz25]

You two quit ruining my thread.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Laz777

Another ad hominem, nice going.

No, not really. It isn't ad hominem if it is relevant to the topic at hand. Your only proof that I "lost" the argument is the clever witticism that calling other people names only means that name-caller lost the argument. So, I called it for what it was. Don't like it? Go get your shine box.

Originally Posted by Laz777

No, this isn't a game and I never claimed to be anyone's savior.

No, it was just implied.

Originally Posted by Laz777

I've looked at things from your perspective just as I've looked at it from the "left". After that I looked at the issues without political goggles, I just looked at things for what they were. Anyone can looks at the results and make judgments based on the results, you don't have to be a historian or a political scholar to see fraud and malfeasance everywhere you look.

Show me any point in history, in any country or system, where neither of those things existed, and I'll show you a $3 bill.

Originally Posted by Laz777

You're using sophistry to prove what? That the names you have called me accurately portray who I am and the views I hold? What point am I trying to prove?

You can't be this obtuse, and even if you are, it really isn't my problem.

Originally Posted by Laz777

Red herring. next...

Not really. I provided a proper example, using your own statement, to disprove your completely dumb and asinine statement that "codes and statutes are not laws." And you are going to suggest that I am the one who cannot admit when I am wrong? I've proved you wrong twice in this thread without any doubt (codes and statutes, and how long it takes to complete law school).

Like I said, go get your shine box, buddy.

Originally Posted by Laz777

Apparently you missed the point, purposely most likely, a reasonable assumption on my part. You equate "a free life" with material abundance supplied by the government when that was not anywhere near what I meant and you know it.

This is where reading comprehension skills would do you well. I never said what I equated "free life" to mean. All I said/implied is that your vision of what freedom is or has been in this country is historically untrue. What's more, your rant about King George and company below proves as much.

Originally Posted by Laz777

All men are created for freedom, as long as they do not cause harm to other people or their property then they should be able to live their lives in peace. That means minimal government interference in their lives, free from coercion, extortion, involuntary servitude, etc., etc., i.e., no slavery or forced taxation in the name of the fictional "greater good".

1. You should check out the 13th Amendment. It may clear up a few misconceptions you might be laboring under.

2. You know what is funny? You spend all this time quoting "great men" of our nation's history, all of whom supported taxation as a right of the nation-state.

Originally Posted by Laz777

I doubt that severely. If you want to take from me to give to another then you're definitely not familiar with the concept of liberty.

Oh, of course. And I assume you live in a shack somewhere on land you fairly purchased from Native Americans? If not, then be quiet about liberty and stick to your shine box.

Originally Posted by Laz777

You seem to be a bit lost my friend.

Hit Pot. I'm Kettle. No, I'm not black.

Originally Posted by Laz777

To be free means you are your own sovereign, a sovereign without subjects.

Like I said, if this is your definition, then no one in this country has ever been "free."

Originally Posted by Laz777

This means when King George's Armies were defeated by the people of America everyone became political equals, everyone was a sovereign. One man couldn't force another man to do anything against his will, that is freedom. Might does not make right. Can I go next door to my neighbor and demand he pay me a certain sum of money because I have the gun? If I cannot do such a thing then my government cannot do such a thing. Our government was created to be very limited in its powers because the founders understood what government really was; brute force. Why would any sane group of free, sovereign people allow something they created together rule over them? How can the creation tell the creator what to do? Our forefathers knew this principle well and did what they could to slow down what they knew we would eventually face, a tyrannical government.

I don't know what la-la-land you live in, but that is def. not what happened when the colonists defeated England. Just ask women and black people.

Originally Posted by Laz777

Jefferson said "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” Who do you think Jefferson was talking about when he said "they"? Was he referring to the British? No, Jefferson was referring to our own government.

I can play with quotes too. For example: “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes.” - Samuel Johnson

Originally Posted by Laz777

The Constitution can be easily understood by the slowest of men and women. It needs no group of special interpreters or some intellectual elite to tell us what it means. It is not an enigma or a mystery, it is clear in its meaning. Anyone that tells you otherwise is a liar and wants to keep you on your knees.

Yeah, that's why the founders, clearly intelligent men, argued about what the text meant endlessly. You can read their journals and papers. You calling Jefferson a liar? Go get your shine box.

Originally Posted by Laz777

Whatever, you should be a politician. You can't even admit when you're wrong.

Okay dipshit. It takes 3 years to go through law school, not 8. Look it up. (Like I said, that's at least two.)