Cop gets Firefly treatment by piratenews

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

I'm kinda wondering why the guy with the concealed-carry permit didn't blow the Ohio cop away who pulled him over. It would have been a pretty clear case of self-defense, since the cop is heard on his own dash-cam saying that he could put ten rounds in the driver without losing any sleep.

And it turned out this wasn't the first time he'd made such threats to concealed-carry permit holders.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/21/video-police-officer-threatens-c
oncealed-carry-driver-with-execution-beating/

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 18, 2011 2:18 AM

I'm still waiting for the MI Supreme Court to get off their ass regarding a certain disputed point of law, which IMHO out not to even BE in dispute!

The notion of whether or not you've a legal right to resist (up to and including lethal force) the efforts of law enforcement even when they're obviously, blatantly, in the wrong - like kicking in your door without a warrant when it's not even an emergency, which is one of the issues in the Goldobo
In my eyes that shouldn't even be a QUESTION, and ANY notion of resistance to law enforcement operating outside the bounds of their authority MUST include the question of lethal force because they'll damn sure employ such against you the very moment you begin resisting, and often even when you don't!

On that note, not sure if anyone noticed, but they finally sprung Cory Maye - of course, if the penalty for such resistance is gonna be the destruction of your life one way or another, there's no reason not to go down swinging.

I always wonder about that - once you've popped that first round off at the boys in blue, why stop?
Yer as good as dead anyways, law or no law, so why not go for maximum body-count and at least send the message that such behavior is going to be very, very costly ?

Oddly enough, having just that ATTITUDE can prevent a lit of petty bullshit from the boys in blue - one reason they don't play stupid games over here is cause no one wants to know just how far I am willing to push a counter-response if they do step over the line.
The ironic result of this is that our dealings have always been very polite and consumately professional on both ends, even in the one recent case where they've been slightly opposed.

Anyhows, I addressed the matter of some cop getting shot over attempted pet murder elsewhere, but you know what is also a matter of time ?
Someone relatively innocent on the receiving end of a dynamic entry search or other form of abuse, is going to cap a round, realize the absolute futility of standing down or surrendering, and go for broke with it - and odds are it will be a returning veteran to boot, cause it damn near happened already, See Also: Jose Guerena.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 18, 2011 2:46 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

I'm still waiting for the MI Supreme Court to get off their ass regarding a certain disputed point of law, which IMHO out not to even BE in dispute!

They already did in Indiana, from the State Supreme court decision Barnes v. State:

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence... We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-
a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 18, 2011 1:58 PM

Which is of course, complete bullshit and constitutionally unsupportable.

Not to mention the very idea, the very concept, of policing is based upon the notion that they are supposedly accountable, that they will obey the law, that the state can enforce this, and this ruling is a backhanded admission that such is not the case, reducing them to simply one more street gang, on top of which the ruling itself breaks and thus invalidates the implied social contract which allows for the existence of the badge bearing horde in the first place.

I believe it may well violate, quite explicitly, the Indiana state constitution as well, although I am not so familiar with that one as I am those of Michigan and Texas, but state constitutions generally follow a certain format, and most of em, funny little bit about that, originally stated that the right to resist, the right to bear arms.. "shall not be questioned" - yeah, you heard that right, not just not-infringed, not-even-QUESTIONED.

But then, since when have the powers that be ever really obeyed the rules and laws they inflict by force upon us, often without consent ?

The antifederalists warned of this kind of judicial tyranny in potential when the US Constitution was being written, but that's a bit of a strange case, since the reason they were ignored was that Hamilton and Jay IMHO were intentionally plotting to use that deliberately planted loophole to subvert the notion of a classless society from the very start, being that they wanted a new aristocracy with themselves at the head of it.
(See Also: Anti-Federalist 78-82)
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/

So essentially that ruling is an affirmation of Feudalism, an admission that Democracy is a sham in Indiana.

-Frem
PS. There's also that it's completely incompatible with previous interpretations of constitutional law, as well.
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 18, 2011 2:11 PM

DALEK!

I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree. I think the logic behind this decision is solid. If the police make a mistake and enter you home illegally, they may very well think they have the right place. They believe that they are within there legal rights and that you are just resisting arrest. If you draw a weapon, chances are you are going to get shot. The error can always be sorted out later.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 18, 2011 3:59 PM

Oh yeah ?
Tell that to Salvatoe Culosi, or Eurie Stamps, or Jose Gurena... oh wait, you can't, cause they're dead, and the first two, mind you, were unarmed.

That "sort it out later" myth is as a deadly as "hand it over and they won't shoot you", it's a fallacy - cause at the point where they realize they're in the wrong, you are in their custody, under their power, and they have EVERY incentive to maintain that particular situation or cause you to have an "unfortunate accident", especially since most of the time the only 'consequence' is a paid vaction, or in especially dire circumstances being bumped from the department, which mind you usually results in them signing up with another one.

Sort it out later presumes there will BE a later, and that is not very often the case, sadly - we must face the ugly realities of a situation before writing legislation based on wishful thinking of how things OUGHT to be.

There's also that many cops ALWAYS believe they're "in the right" even when blatantly operating outside the law, deliberately, like a cop who tasers a suspect for nine minutes straight because he thinks they'll otherwise get off easy.
(said suspect was innocent, but unfortunately too dead to exonerate)

Yeah, if you draw a weapon, chances are you may get shot - but you may get shot anyway, ask the family of Aiyana Jones about that one.

At some point you HAVE to acknowledge the right to resist, or you do not live in a free society.

The question is whether to dismiss the pretense, or try to enforce it.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 18, 2011 5:09 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:

I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree. I think the logic behind this decision is solid. If the police make a mistake and enter you home illegally, they may very well think they have the right place. They believe that they are within there legal rights and that you are just resisting arrest. If you draw a weapon, chances are you are going to get shot. The error can always be sorted out later.

If you shoot, be sure to hit all of your targets.

Quote:

Three Atlanta Police Officers Sentenced for Planting Evidence and Killing a 92-Year-Old Grandmother in Botched Raid

by Jonathan Turley attorney at law for Area 51

Three former Atlanta police officers have been sentenced to prison in one of the most disturbing recent cases of police abuse. Former officers — Jason Smith, Gregg Junnier and Arthur Tesler — were sentenced to ten to three years for their roles in the death of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston.

The officers were accused of an astonishing range of criminal acts leading to Johnson’s death. It began with the planting on drugs on a dealer named Fabian Sheats. They wanted to bust Sheats to help meet an informal quota for such arrests. When he came up clean, they planted pot that they had found earlier. They then forced him to give them an address of a house were they would buy drugs.

Sheats appears to have randomly pointed out 933 Neal St., the home of Johnston, and told them to look for a guy named “Sam.” However, they could not find a snitch to buy the drugs and departmental rules prevented them from using Sheats. So, they fabricated information on a warrant and got approval for a “no knock” entry.

Since took about two minutes to bust down the door on Johnston’s house and the old lady had time to grab a gun and fire once — wildly missing the officers. They responded with 39 bullets — hitting and killing Johnston five or six times — though strangely the police department could not tell which officer actually killed Johnston. The police fire also wounded Junnier and two other officers.

When they did not find any drugs, the officers are accused of planting drugs on the house and claiming that they informant had purchased drugs at their request from the house. For the background on the case, click here.

Smith, 36, of Oxford, Georgia, was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison. Junnier, 42, of Woodstock, Georgia, was sentenced to six years in federal prison. Tesler, 42, of Acworth, Georgia was sentenced to five years in federal prison.

For the full story, click here and here and here.

Do you want to know more?

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/03/08/three-atlanta-police-officers-sen
tenced-for-planting-evidence-and-killing-a-92-year-old-grandmother-in-botched-raid/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 18, 2011 5:25 PM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Oh yeah ?
Tell that to Salvatoe Culosi, or Eurie Stamps, or Jose Gurena... oh wait, you can't, cause they're dead, and the first two, mind you, were unarmed.

Two careless accidents and a very unfortunate situation.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/03/10/da-issues-report-on-the-eurie

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/23/AR2006
032301117.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Guerena_shooting

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
That "sort it out later" myth is as a deadly as "hand it over and they won't shoot you", it's a fallacy - cause at the point where they realize they're in the wrong, you are in their custody, under their power, and they have EVERY incentive to maintain that particular situation or cause you to have an "unfortunate accident", especially since most of the time the only 'consequence' is a paid vaction, or in especially dire circumstances being bumped from the department, which mind you usually results in them signing up with another one.

...and if you try to resist you still end up in that situation.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:Sort it out later presumes there will BE a later, and that is not very often the case, sadly - we must face the ugly realities of a situation before writing legislation based on wishful thinking of how things OUGHT to be.

No, the overwhelming vast majority of the time there is a later. Only a very small percent of arrest result in the death, or even shooting of a suspect.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:There's also that many cops ALWAYS believe they're "in the right" even when blatantly operating outside the law, deliberately, like a cop who tasers a suspect for nine minutes straight because he thinks they'll otherwise get off easy.
(said suspect was innocent, but unfortunately too dead to exonerate)

Just like other people, not all cops are upstanding.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:Yeah, if you draw a weapon, chances are you may get shot - but you may get shot anyway, ask the family of Aiyana Jones about that one.

At some point you HAVE to acknowledge the right to resist, or you do not live in a free society.

The question is whether to dismiss the pretense, or try to enforce it.

Even if you have that right, what is it going to get you? Unless you get extremely lucky your still going to be put into custody. Possibly shot if you bring out a weapon or look like you are. The question is how do you enforce it? You can't expect that police not to make mistakes, not one can do that.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 18, 2011 6:07 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I'm siding with Frem on this one, in my city police shootings, as in the police shooting people, are really common and out of control because usually the shooting shouldn't have happened and it did because the police mishandled the situation. Sometimes the police need to shoot someone, but not very often and it happens way too much here and we're all sick of it. Part of the problem is their attitude, part of the problem is a lack of training and education on how to handle situations where mental health differences are a factor. I don't like Nick's attitude about this because as Frem said you can't sort it out later when the person has died.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 18, 2011 6:20 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"You can't expect that police not to make mistakes, not one can do that."

Hello,

You can expect them to try very hard not to make mistakes.

I posit that before doors are bashed in, grenades are thrown, or firearms are drawn, the police should have already researched the situation exceedingly thoroughly. Researched it well enough that if a mistake is made, it is detected before firearms are pointed at human beings.

Unfortunately, there is no great emphasis on being extra-extra sure before storming the castle.

And hence, if police are invading your property illegally and threatening you with weapons, YOU ALREADY KNOW THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT THEM.

They don't care much about making mistakes, and you are in their line of fire.

There is functionally no difference between a 'criminal' illegally invading your house and threatening you, and a 'police officer' doing it. I do not feel particularly comfortable in my ability to resist an armed invasion by many trained adversaries, but if someone else does, I think they should be entitled to defend themselves without risking prosecution for resisting violent criminals.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 2:11 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I'm siding with Frem on this one, in my city police shootings, as in the police shooting people, are really common and out of control because usually the shooting shouldn't have happened and it did because the police mishandled the situation. Sometimes the police need to shoot someone, but not very often and it happens way too much here and we're all sick of it. Part of the problem is their attitude, part of the problem is a lack of training and education on how to handle situations where mental health differences are a factor. I don't like Nick's attitude about this because as Frem said you can't sort it out later when the person has died.

...and people resisting and fighting the police is not going to change tactics, for the better, or get the police better training.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 3:11 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

As my hubby says

Always treat a man with a gun like a man with a gun.

It doesn't matter that this man (or woman) with a gun is wearing a uniform or is a strung-out homie. If someone is breaking into your house and you have a clear tactical advantage, shoot. If not, don't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 7:39 AM

Nick, I reject the notion that civil rights are just for show, and that actually enforcing them a waste of time, because that more than anything else is one of the greater enablers of tyranny to begin with.
Hell, I feel a civic DUTY much of the time to use the right of free speech to say things other folks don't dare.

Radley Balko has done a far better job than I ever could researching this issue, and has also come to the conclusion that the police as a whole are completely out of line.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476

Besides which, in a legal sense if a cop is operating outside of, or in direct contravention of, their established authority - in that moment, at that time, they are nothing more than an armed thug and SHOULD be treated accordingly, this whole veneration, idolisation as if they were a specially protected class is bunk and in complete disregard for the Peelian Principles behind professional policing in the first place.
They're NOT petty lords, they're NOT tin gods, they're humans like us, flawed like us, and when they exceed their authority should never, EVER be held to a LOWER standard, which they often are, but rather a higher one because they swore an Oath to the law, on top of which "under color of law" is a crime in and of itself, albeit one no prosecutor will charge them with since the gutless bastards are so dependant on the testilying fucks in order to function in the sham we call a justice system.

There's also the moral question here, police deliberately signed up for a job they had risks, despite those risks being tremendously overinflated and overblown in the media for deliberate sympathy stroking, and yet in the name of "officer safety" chose to then pass the buck and defer those risks unto the public by way of using tactics that needlessly endanger them, who did NOT agree to the risks, who did NOT swear an oath to the law, thus abidicating by force their own responsibilities upon those who did not agree to accept them.
I realize that one is debatable but it's a form of moral and personal cowardice I find apalling.

So to is the "few bad apples" argument, with the rise of social media and the public turning their own cameras upon the police in response to an ever growing surveillence state, it's very noteable that the first response is to silence this, to seize the cameras, to manipulate the law so it applies to to the people, but not to the police - this is a blatant indication of "Mens rea" in that it shows they *KNOW* they are engaging in morally questionable action, and that the impulse is damn near universal across the board on behalf of police shows that this is NOT a "few bad apples", but inherent within the culture of policing itself.
This is also quite vindicated by just HOW often the video and the officers so-called testimony are drastically, radically different, and it's quite interesting psychologically that in many of those cases the officer actually BELIEVES the bullshit story in part due to a certain arrogance caused by that veneration, which has it's own problem in the unspoken offense of "contempt of cop", and the resultant abuse which springs from it.
This also manifests in the pomp and pageanty, at taxpayer expense, when an officer does succumb to the risks of the job - and yet when some innocent civvie is killed by their malice or negligence they can't even be bothered to send an honor squad to hang their heads in penance as at least a gesture of SOME humility ?
That's IF they admit responsibility at all, which they almost never do, playing blame the victim to the hilt and using their support organisations like a goddamn mafia to "lean on" everyone involved in a desperate attempt to absolve themselves of anything remotely resembling responsibility - and even when a cop is totally and blatantly abusive or criminal there they are, shoulder to shoulder in the thin blue line, and you dare try to shovel that "few bad apples" song and dance ?
Like hell, ain't the apples, it's the barrel that's bad, the culture that warps them into this - and it's fed into, enabled, by that very veneration and the insane troll logic that resistance-is-always-wrong.

No, without the RIGHT to resist, without limitation - abuses or infringements upon other rights...
Then we HAVE NO RIGHTS.
And that, is incompatible with Democracy, it's incompatible with the Constitution, and it's incompatible with America, or at least the ideal thereof.

That said, you should also remember we have recently in this county managed to really improve the behavior of the local police by the one method we had left, yanking them up by the purse strings - but what REALLY needs be done is to install a CIVILIAN review board drawn from the community itself so that they can decide whether they are being protected or preyed upon, cause in many cases in Detroit it's the latter...
Speakin of, they just fired much of the criminal scum supposedly-responsible for enforcing those unenforced consent decrees here, and this comes on the heels of firing the previous one for getting caught banging the chief of police while embezzling like crazy, and STILL... STILL, those consent decrees are not met, because the very folk in charge of them are the folk under them, the same way any investigation into police conduct by police is always laughable - we need review and accountability measures in such a fashion that they answer to communities, rather than answer only to themselves.

Also, you know one measure that cut down substantially on Taser abuse in Wayne County ?
They put a tamper-proof camera on the damn things, and after a few incidents where officers disabled those cameras prior to misbehavior which caused enough public outcry to have them chased out of town on a rail, a lot of the problem has mitigated since - although those cops just went down the line, as usual.
(Seriously: Google the term "Gypsy Cop")

But the primary measure which'd cut down abuse is risk, risk that an abusive officer might actually come to harm and then NOT be supported by the department, and that's a two part thing, the first of which being that whole coming to harm thing, and the second being mitigation or elimination of that thin-blue-line mafioso bullshit, but without the first, without the possibility of resistance and therefore risk, there is no incentive.
I got a little personal experience with that during my inglorious experience on the city council of my former township, and had it not been for the ability to significantly resist things mighta gone a lot uglier than they did - for a fact had I not been armed and willing at one point I woulda gotten fried extra crispy by a really pissed off soon-to-be-ex cop who had declared lethal intent and reached for his taser.

When a cop has to ask himself "Am I really willing to put my ass on the line for this, to risk my neck ?" instead of holding the assumption that he'll be supported and exempted from accountability no matter WHAT he does - then, and only then is the dynamic of this gonna change, all the laws in the world mean nothing when the folks responsible for enforcing them are the ones breaking them.

So I reject your premise that civil rights are just for show, and firmly reject the notion that resistance is futile or counterproductive - it need not always be violent, but resistance is IMPERATIVE to a free society.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 7:53 AM

Also, that whole "Later".

There's a big difference between engaging the police on a legal level over a disputed charge when you are free, have the ability to do your own legwork, and quite possibily the financial and legal resources to fight back...

Versus being locked up, dependant wholly on their whim for access to your lawyer, or stuck accepting their professional dive taker, having no private communications (I know FOR A FACT this is true in 14B here) having all your money tied up in bail, having been charged with a crime and unable to properly respond to the inevitable tide of demonisation as the compliant media laps up their bullshit press releases, while you lose your house, your job, your life...

Yes, in regard to 14B, when I was going to court to essentially read my official report, which I'd ALREADY given to both sides (cause I didn't trust the prosecutor to not violate discovery) she had the goddamn nerve to laughingly share privledged information with me that could have only come from either the public defender deliberately betraying his clients, or eavesdropping devices in the supposedly private conference room.
I was really, seriously, fucking pissed off about it - for crying out loud I had em cold as a three day corpse, caught red-handed WITH the goddamn property ON THEIR PERSON at the time of their arrest, so why fuck everything up by taking liberties like that ?

I chewed her ass about it later and told her if it were not for the fact that the court could compel testimony by legal threat, I woulda walked out the door on the spot.

I know too goddamn much about the way things work within the system to believe that settling it up "later" after being victim to their tender mercies is gonna work so well - and depending on the situation, just how badly your life is gonna get wrecked, and the nature of the person in question, hell yes, risk of imminent death may well be in THEIR opinion, a better choice.

And anyhow, it's one YOU have no right to make for them.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 8:33 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'm kinda wondering why the guy with the concealed-carry permit didn't blow the Ohio cop away who pulled him over. It would have been a pretty clear case of self-defense, since the cop is heard on his own dash-cam saying that he could put ten rounds in the driver without losing any sleep.

And it turned out this wasn't the first time he'd made such threats to concealed-carry permit holders.

The murder of this cop was called "firefly treatment". Thats a good description. He probably was someone with tons of potential and loved by a whole lot of people all of whom want him back after he was cut short by some idiot who lacked the sense to see beyond his own short term self interest. Unfortunately no matter how much the people organize and chatter, there's no movie or sequel series or comic books in this cop's future.

Cops get pretty sensitive when it comes to concealed carry. While you note the Stark County case of threats against an individual and think its ok to "blow the cop away" it should be noted that just north of that location a cop was "blown away" in just the manner you describe perhaps adding to the Stark County cop's anxiety. I think that cop was wrong, he needs to be punished, but we should respect and understand where his feelings come from. Fear.

In the Twinsburg case the Officer did not draw his weapon and he was shot seconds after the stop and a couple minutes before backup arrived and as his police dog was locked in the back of his cruiser. His gun was not drawn. The man then stood over the fallen officer and put several more rounds into him to finish him off.

That incident affected many of the cops in the area. They worked with him since he had a dog he often was borrowed by neighboring jurisdictions. He played in a band and owned a successful side business. He left behind a wife and a young child. He was as good a man as I ever met.

Your casual call to blow people away is something police officers carry with them, the possibility is always there. Its on every call, every stop, every routine encounter. And every night they go home to their spouse and children and wonder if tomorrow is the day they orphan their kids. The children think about it, the wives think about it.

Maybe you need to think about it too...hopefully before you start just blowing folks away.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 8:50 AM

Maybe THEY need to think about it, before THEY start blowing folks away, or even arbitrarily threatening to.

Quid. Pro. Quo.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 11:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Maybe THEY need to think about it, before THEY start blowing folks away, or even arbitrarily threatening to.

Quid. Pro. Quo.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

Egg-fucking-ZACTLY.

Someone telling me he should put ten rounds in me FOR TRYING TO TELL HIM I HAD A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT AND A WEAPON is threatening my life.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 12:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I'm siding with Frem on this one, in my city police shootings, as in the police shooting people, are really common and out of control because usually the shooting shouldn't have happened and it did because the police mishandled the situation. Sometimes the police need to shoot someone, but not very often and it happens way too much here and we're all sick of it. Part of the problem is their attitude, part of the problem is a lack of training and education on how to handle situations where mental health differences are a factor. I don't like Nick's attitude about this because as Frem said you can't sort it out later when the person has died.

...and people resisting and fighting the police is not going to change tactics, for the better, or get the police better training.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

Really? You don't think they'll get better training in, say, at least TRYING to get the right freaking address next time?

That's generally been one of the biggest gripes about gangs doing drive-by shootings - their tendency to just completely get the wrong house.

Shouldn't the cops be better at this than the local gangsters are? And if they aren't, shouldn't that be a pretty clear indicator that they NEED some better training?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 1:32 PM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Nick, I reject the notion that civil rights are just for show, and that actually enforcing them a waste of time, because that more than anything else is one of the greater enablers of tyranny to begin with.

I did not say it was a waste of time enforcing civil rights. I will ask again, how are you going to enforce a persons right to resist? If you can't enforce it, if that right does not change the results of situations, that right does not exist.

So, how do you enforce that right?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 1:58 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Nick, I reject the notion that civil rights are just for show, and that actually enforcing them a waste of time, because that more than anything else is one of the greater enablers of tyranny to begin with.

I did not say it was a waste of time enforcing civil rights. I will ask again, how are you going to enforce a persons right to resist? If you can't enforce it, if that right does not change the results of situations, that right does not exist.

So, how do you enforce that right?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

Hello,

I think if police officers meet resistance whenever they violate people's rights, they will want to avoid doing that.

Moreso will they will want to avoid doing that if they are charged (as criminals are) with the deaths that occur as a result of their actions.

Laws must work consistently and across the board in order for them to be respected. If a criminal enters my home illegally and shoots me down as I attempt to defend myself, he is charged with murder.

If an officer does this, he should also be charged with murder.

This will have a deterrent effect on the criminal. Whoever it is.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 3:12 PM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I think if police officers meet resistance whenever they violate people's rights, they will want to avoid doing that.

Moreso will they will want to avoid doing that if they are charged (as criminals are) with the deaths that occur as a result of their actions.

Laws must work consistently and across the board in order for them to be respected. If a criminal enters my home illegally and shoots me down as I attempt to defend myself, he is charged with murder.

If an officer does this, he should also be charged with murder.

This will have a deterrent effect on the criminal. Whoever it is.

--Anthony

That is assuming they don't want to or try to avoid this now. I don't prescribe to that one bit.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2011 10:03 AM

Issat so, then ?

Well perhaps you could detail to me any other logical reason that police and their affiliates oppose wholesale, universally and across the country, any measure whatsoever that includes anything even remotely resembling accountability.

Perhaps you could explain why the first response of police to being recorded is an attempt to, often very illegally, force them to stop, confiscate the means, or even arrest those doing so.

Oh no, I reject your prescription, utterly - for without accountability, without consequences, there is no REASON to avoid violating peoples rights, especially when in most cases they're allowed to do so with impunity.
And the automatic assumption that they're always in the right, even when they're obviously not, that one should just allow the abuses to continue, that's what enables them, more than anything else.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 21, 2011 3:16 AM