The "war on police" in America
- Thread starter Johnnypenso
- 797 comments
- 38,305 views
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 4,155
- United States
When someone says "I'm gonna call the police!", they're implying that instead of beating you up themselves, they're going to get them to. Police are sometimes absolutely worthless in situations, though when they are useful, its a day to remember.
- 4,155
- United States
Probably because you aren't directly affected, unless you want to fight a cop today. Granted, there are questions being raised about practices surrounding profiling, force used during arrest, etc., but it's hardly a cause for revolution.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Because I think the majority of Americans realize that a few stories in the media, many of which are blatantly false or highly distorted (hands up don't shoot anyone?), don't taint the great work that hundreds of thousands of police officers do every day. Sure there are bad cops, there are bad people in every profession, but the vast majority are decent people doing a very difficult job under increasingly intense scrutiny.
- 1,063
- Georgia
- Netherlord
That and a sense of "well it didn't happen to me so **** it". That's how a lot of people feel round these here parts lol.
- 2,993
- Brisbane
- jimipitbull
- 6,425
- KCCO
Actually those are expenses and insurance is an asset...
- 2,993
- Brisbane
- jimipitbull
- 6,425
- KCCO
It's prepaid, and when it expires it an expense. You can't have an expense on a liability (trust me, I'm studying this stuff...)
Keef
Premium
- 25,152
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Like handing out fines for victimless crimes to meet their traffic ticket quota?
- 6,425
- KCCO
Although I do know of some* stations who do such, I have faith that the majority of others don't.
*(My friend's mother is a cop, and another friend's father works for a different department, both are people I trust. Another friends is in swat and I know there are issues with the whole organization, but I trust them as well.)
I don't understand though why people make a fuss about it though.... If you're not doing anything unlawful, why be afraid??
squadops
(Banned)
- 1,987
- United States
Are victimless crimes unlawful?
Anyway, the role of the police should be one of investigating actual crimes and putting the bad guys away, not all this hand holding in the guise of protecting society. I don't need saving from myself and I certainly don't appreciate being harassed and fined when I've done nothing to injure another(physically or otherwise).
- 7,016
- United States
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 6,425
- KCCO
I'm sorry, but please give me a victimless crime that's is not illicit...
Like I said, if you do something wrong, then you should have something to fear and be held accountable for. Why don't we all let people pump up on drugs and let them drive on public roads, since they are "victimless crimes"... Let's see the response to that and if any single fatalities occur, it can't be "victimless" can it?
squadops
(Banned)
- 1,987
- United States
Johnnypenso
I don't think it's a good idea to blindly accept policy simply out of fear, it sounds like the ends justifying the means.
Swagger897
Not wearing a seat belt.
There have been quite a few conversations here addressing the second part of your post. The last one I recall was in The Libertarian Thread between Foolkiller and KSaiyu. Some others can probably be found in The Human Rights thread. I'm of the opinion that much harsher penalties need to be applied when a crime is actually committed and nothing done beforehand over what might be. Of course it's not as simple as all that but we could start by stopping with the criminalizing of innocent people.
_________________________________________
A silly pic over a serious political question.
Dennis J. Kucinich
I didn't know the National Guard has become involved, anyone have a take on that? If it's not martial law I don't know under what authority this happened.
Here is another blip from the same Kucinich article that seems appropriate here 👍
One question I have is over the Federal nature of what is being enforced and what is not. We seem to be caught somewhere in between, or on the way to our municipal police forces becoming Federal.
Here is the link.(I'm assuming most of you know who Kucinich is, I'd describe him as a very left Libertarian lol)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-j-kucinich/police-militarization_b_5687598.html
- 6,425
- KCCO
Exactly. What if he/she wasn't wearing their seatbelt, and a car which had lost its breaking abilities and had no other route to follow hit the rear of such car?
Who would be at fault? The state for not mandating a law of such? The car behind? The make of the vehicle? There are endless possibilities to it, and a victim is for sure present (providing injuries/fatalities occurred). You can't find me a victimless crime out there which does not have another penalty, law, or crime attached to it.
Stolen goods bought unknown to the buyer may be a possibility, because they would be returned and reparation would have to be made, but there is still a victim to it somewhere...
- 7,620
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
You hit the distinction on the last line. If a fatality occurs, then someone may have caused harm. If one doesn't occur, there is no victim. Being loaded up on drugs isn't going to hurt anyone else.
The seatbelt case is very similar. Seatbelt or not, the act of driving potentially creates 4000+ lb sledgehammers traveling at many 10's of miles per hour. Too dangerous to allow?
- 2,865
- Australia
Are there any actions that you believe should be stopped prior to harm coming to another? Say, like someone indiscriminately throwing bricks off of the top of a building. If so, then we're immediately in to the negotiation stage. Negotiation will probably include risk/reward factors. The no seat belt scenario has no rewards as far as I can see which doesn't bode well for it in the negotiation. Driving the car itself on the other hand has obvious rewards, but certainly risks as well.
Going back to.....
"Asset of the state" means that the people are ultimately the collective employer. A revolt doesn't necessarily require a dramatic "overthrowing government with force" as @Exorcet put it, but rather for the people to know and embrace the power that they have. Knowing what you do and don't want them to enforce would be handy as well. If "if" defines un-enforceability then both brick thrower and no seat belt-wearer are fine until they actually hurt someone right?
Doesn't matter how much you want it to be black and white. It matters if it can be or not. It can't.
Last edited:
- 2,810
- Tasmania, AU
- stigsdaddy
The solution is undoubtedly more guns. Guns for the poor, guns for the children. 'Murica!
The police in the US are so paranoid about being killed by random crazies with automatics that they themselves are at a higher risk of killing someone, so why not give up your right to bear arms? You've given up more important rights in the last half a decade...
The police in the US are so paranoid about being killed by random crazies with automatics that they themselves are at a higher risk of killing someone, so why not give up your right to bear arms? You've given up more important rights in the last half a decade...
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
And that sounds like a convenient cliche that doesn't apply here. And most of us do blindly accept the commands of our bosses if we want to retain our jobs. Your issue in this case should be with the policy makers who write the rules, not the guys on the line that are just doing their jobs as directed.
Drunk driving. I can down a dozen beer and drive home, as long as no one gets hurt is that okay?
Similar threads
