Conquer Club

TGD,

Come try to take a gun from me and see if I need to shoot you to stop you. I might pop you in the kneecap, but that's because you're a lawyer.

In so many of the videos, yes some of them with "criminals" with "weapons" including Swiss army knifes, BB guns, a pill bottle(it might have been a gun, or there might not even have been a pill bottle) the cops shoot at the first chance.

For the homeless guy, the cop was recorded saying he wanted to shoot him in the dick and wouldn't you know a bit later, he just missed the guys dick and gets him in the ass.

When you say you don't wish for Brown to be the poster child, that's exactly who should be the poster child. You have t deal with not just the homeless in a reasonable manner, but deal with any situation in a reasonable manner.

Cops go into assess the threat. If they are relying on their guns to manage the situation, then something is deeply wrong. They have the full weight of the state.

The thing is, they keep saying stuff like, he was reaching into his waistband. But if the guy doesn't have a gun in their waistband, and he is facing gun toting police that he knows can more or less openly murder him on the spot with the full support of the state, then it becomes hard to believe that he was reaching into his waistband.

I thought this was exactly what the police were supposed to be protecting against. How must those people who called it in feel? 12 year old at the park scaring folks is what the newspapers said. In the video he looked alone and it was snowy.

What happened to swat? If the cop has a camera on him and there will be a video recording of you killing a cop, I don't think you are going to kill the cop. Maybe the cops should be expected to assume that when they roll up there they bring their sack of balls, because they have weight of the most expensive law system man has ever known behind them.

thegreekdog wrote:

codeblue1018 wrote:Mets, the execution of Michael Brown? Did you read the case report regarding this incident including witness statements and the evidence provided to the grand jury? No, you didn't. The Garner case leaves a sour taste in my mouth, however, Michael Brown? Ha! Not in the least. Everyone keeps their focus on the "unarmed black man"; the fact that he was unarmed is completely irrelevant; "the gentle giant" tried on multiple occasions to disarm Officer Wilson. Was this to take his gun home and keep it as a souvenir? No, it wasn't it; it was so that he could kill Officer Wilson. The evidence proves this theory as well from the struggle within the patrol car. Bottom line Is this: to all the critics out there - simply put on a uniform and do the job before judging what it is officers do and the decisions that they make. Decisions are made in a split second in situations such as these and 99% of the time, the decisions are correct; for the 1% that aren't, prosecute them. Officers don't have the luxury of retreating especially in the Brown case. Not only did the "gentle giant" commit a robbery but now he assaulted and attempted to disarm a police officer for the sole intent on killing Officer Wilson. If this pos would have done what he was told to do, Brown would still be breathing. Officer Wilson was doomed from the minute he pulled the trigger. No one wants to hear the truth in this case. Wilson was guilty based in the court of public opinion when no one, I repeat, no one knew the facts. What's a shame is the fact that Officer Wilsons life will never be the same even though he did his job correctly that day.

Mets - I give you my Exhibit A. Is codeblue off base about Michael Brown? Sure. But note that the Garner leaves a sour taste in his mouth while the Brown case does not. While you can certainly shake your fist at codeblue (and you have every right to do so) the intelligent thing for this particular cause is to focus on Garner, not defend Brown. Make Garner your poster child, not Brown.

Off base? Elaborate mate; I'll be very interested in your response.

thegreekdog wrote:(3) It would matter a lot more if it was Eric Garner we were fighting for because that person is completely innocent, both figuratively and literally.

No he is not. His death happened while he was resisting arrest -- that's a crime -- and he has a pretty damn long arrest record leading up to that incident. In any meaningful way, he is at least as guilty as Michael Brown and possibly more. So if your theory is that we should be getting behind the person who is cleaner with respect to the law, then you should sure as hell not be backing Eric Garner. That alone is enough to dismiss your perspective on how people are reacting. You're just empirically incorrect. Garner's case got universal condemnation because it was clear that Garner posed no real threat to the officer. It had little to do with the fact that a "crime" was being committed. Your original point would at least make more sense if your argument was instead that we should be backing the person that everyone agrees was wrongfully killed, instead of that we should be backing the person who wasn't a "criminal." They were both criminals. Now you're walking that back, which is fine, but I was responding to your original argument, not your new one.

Phatscotty wrote:the truth doesn't matter, all that matters is that social justice is marching forward with it's officially hijacked story which curiously has not changed a single bit since the first night Ferguson made the news up until today. Funny how they got it so right without knowing any of the information. But really they didn't get the narrative right, they created the narrative, and made it right, to suit their own ends.

Honest question that would appreciate an honest answer. What is the evidence that Darren Wilson is a racist, or was motivated by racism?

I am tickled that in virtually every other context Phatscotty would argue that the burden of proof is on those who believe the state isn't out to oppress and violate the rights of citizens, but when the context is the clearest case of state oppression this country ever had, suddenly the burden of proof is on those who think that a police officer may have done something wrong.

Sabotage and mets - What I have I typed in this thread (or in any other thread) that makes you think that I think it's okay what happened to Brown? What makes you think I think it's justified? I'm just curious if you could at least quote some things that led you to the conclusion that I think the police officer was justified in using the force that he used in Ferguson.

codeblue1018 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

codeblue1018 wrote:Mets, the execution of Michael Brown? Did you read the case report regarding this incident including witness statements and the evidence provided to the grand jury? No, you didn't. The Garner case leaves a sour taste in my mouth, however, Michael Brown? Ha! Not in the least. Everyone keeps their focus on the "unarmed black man"; the fact that he was unarmed is completely irrelevant; "the gentle giant" tried on multiple occasions to disarm Officer Wilson. Was this to take his gun home and keep it as a souvenir? No, it wasn't it; it was so that he could kill Officer Wilson. The evidence proves this theory as well from the struggle within the patrol car. Bottom line Is this: to all the critics out there - simply put on a uniform and do the job before judging what it is officers do and the decisions that they make. Decisions are made in a split second in situations such as these and 99% of the time, the decisions are correct; for the 1% that aren't, prosecute them. Officers don't have the luxury of retreating especially in the Brown case. Not only did the "gentle giant" commit a robbery but now he assaulted and attempted to disarm a police officer for the sole intent on killing Officer Wilson. If this pos would have done what he was told to do, Brown would still be breathing. Officer Wilson was doomed from the minute he pulled the trigger. No one wants to hear the truth in this case. Wilson was guilty based in the court of public opinion when no one, I repeat, no one knew the facts. What's a shame is the fact that Officer Wilsons life will never be the same even though he did his job correctly that day.

Mets - I give you my Exhibit A. Is codeblue off base about Michael Brown? Sure. But note that the Garner leaves a sour taste in his mouth while the Brown case does not. While you can certainly shake your fist at codeblue (and you have every right to do so) the intelligent thing for this particular cause is to focus on Garner, not defend Brown. Make Garner your poster child, not Brown.

Off base? Elaborate mate; I'll be very interested in your response.

Well let's talk about the facts. Mr. Brown committed a robbery (including, by all accounts, assaulting the store clerk). Mr. Brown then assaulted and/or attempted to disarm a police officer. The police officer shot Mr. Brown six times, killing him.

There is a pivotal moment in that scenario. I think the pivotal moment is "the police officer shot Mr. Brown six times, killing him." You may think the pivotal moment is "Mr. Brown... assaulted and/or attempted to disarm a police officer." Perhaps that is a pivotal moment - if Mr. Brown had not assaulted the police officer, Mr. Brown would likely not be dead (we could even say if Mr. Brown didn't rob the convenience store, Mr. Brown would not be dead). However, that ignores that the police officer had any culpability. The police officer is (supposedly) trained in handling a suspect physically and through the use of non-lethal force. The police officer made a choice to use lethal force on a suspect that was not using lethal force on the police officer. The end result is that a man is dead and there was probably no need for him to die.

This all ignores the obvious issue which is that the case will not actually go to trial, which is the biggest problem of them all. In other words, there is no accountability. In this instance, the police department is not held to any standard, much less the high standards to which it should be held. The police department is being given the benefit of the doubt, not in trial, but before any trial. Frankly, it is shameful. This is further compounded by the lack of any type of remorse from any police departments. Unless I've missed it, I have yet to see a police department or other government official (our grandstanding president notwithstanding) speak vehemently against the police department.

Police departments are supposed to protect and serve citizens. Police officers are supposed to be highly trained and experienced individuals that should have the capacity to deal, non-lethally, with people who may do them harm (or harm others). When a police officer deals with someone lethally, he or she should be subject to AT LEAST the same standards as everyone else.

If I was sitting in my car and someone came and attacked me and I shot that person six times, do you think I should go to trial? Should I at least be indicted? And if the answer is yes to either or both of those questions, why should a police officer not go to trial or be indicted for the same thing, especially consider the police officer is highly trained and comes with the full backing of government?

Metsfanmax wrote:Garner's case got universal condemnation because it was clear that Garner posed no real threat to the officer. It had little to do with the fact that a "crime" was being committed. Your original point would at least make more sense if your argument was instead that we should be backing the person that everyone agrees was wrongfully killed, instead of that we should be backing the person who wasn't a "criminal." They were both criminals. Now you're walking that back, which is fine, but I was responding to your original argument, not your new one.

Maybe I'm walking back, I'm not quite sure. If I am walking back it's because I did not mean "crime" in the context of resisting arrest or having committed a past crime or whatever. I meant Brown was, by all accounts, assaulting a police officer whereas Garner was not assaulting a police officer. In the Brown instance, a member of the general public (e.g. codeblue) could say "Hey, he assaulted a police officer and the officer was defending himself." In the Garner instance, a member of the general public could not say that.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:the truth doesn't matter, all that matters is that social justice is marching forward with it's officially hijacked story which curiously has not changed a single bit since the first night Ferguson made the news up until today. Funny how they got it so right without knowing any of the information. But really they didn't get the narrative right, they created the narrative, and made it right, to suit their own ends.

Honest question that would appreciate an honest answer. What is the evidence that Darren Wilson is a racist, or was motivated by racism?

I am tickled that in virtually every other context Phatscotty would argue that the burden of proof is on those who believe the state isn't out to oppress and violate the rights of citizens, but when the context is the clearest case of state oppression this country ever had, suddenly the burden of proof is on those who think that a police officer may have done something wrong.

You're tickled? I just shake my head in disgust. What Phatscotty should be doing is posting links to Rand Paul articles on this issue; instead, he's trotting out the same old conservative tropes. Plus, you know, who cares about the Constitution? Amirite PS?

thegreekdog wrote:Sabotage and mets - What I have I typed in this thread (or in any other thread) that makes you think that I think it's okay what happened to Brown? What makes you think I think it's justified? I'm just curious if you could at least quote some things that led you to the conclusion that I think the police officer was justified in using the force that he used in Ferguson.

I never said that I thought that was your opinion, and I'm curious if you could at least quote some things that led you to the conclusion that I think you think the police officer was justified.

Maybe I'm walking back, I'm not quite sure. If I am walking back it's because I did not mean "crime" in the context of resisting arrest or having committed a past crime or whatever. I meant Brown was, by all accounts, assaulting a police officer whereas Garner was not assaulting a police officer. In the Brown instance, a member of the general public (e.g. codeblue) could say "Hey, he assaulted a police officer and the officer was defending himself." In the Garner instance, a member of the general public could not say that.

My fundamental problem with your perspective is that as white people, we most naturally think of this in terms of tactics -- what is the most effective argument we can make to help change the system? The problem is that black people actually live this system every day. They constantly suffer injustices like this. They don't have the luxury of saying "well let's just wait until the cleanest police killing comes along" (never mind the horrific nature of that idea to begin with). Every case like this should be an outrage, not just Ferguson. The point here is that you don't win against racism with one protest. You make progress by demonstrating the injustice entrenched in the system, every single day. The black community might be able to score the most points in one instance with Eric Garner -- but the Eric Garner killings are rare. Most of the time the police aren't caught on camera in the way they mistreat black people. If we only focus on those instances, we won't have the sustained anger needed to transform the system.

You're tickled? I just shake my head in disgust. What Phatscotty should be doing is posting links to Rand Paul articles on this issue; instead, he's trotting out the same old conservative tropes. Plus, you know, who cares about the Constitution? Amirite PS?

It's like the five stages of grief, you know? I'm way past the point where anything PS says really bothers me. Now the only thing left to do is laugh at it.

Greek,

I'll respond soon.

Metsfanmax wrote:My fundamental problem with your perspective is that as white people, we most naturally think of this in terms of tactics -- what is the most effective argument we can make to help change the system? The problem is that black people actually live this system every day. They constantly suffer injustices like this. They don't have the luxury of saying "well let's just wait until the cleanest police killing comes along" (never mind the horrific nature of that idea to begin with). Every case like this should be an outrage, not just Ferguson. The point here is that you don't win against racism with one protest. You make progress by demonstrating the injustice entrenched in the system, every single day. The black community might be able to score the most points in one instance with Eric Garner -- but the Eric Garner killings are rare. Most of the time the police aren't caught on camera in the way they mistreat black people. If we only focus on those instances, we won't have the sustained anger needed to transform the system.

Again, while I agree that we should all be outraged that this happens all the time, our outrage will have little effect unless MORE people (and more people in power - whether white or black) are outraged. Black people have been outraged by this for years (small e.g. - I posted here a few years ago that one of my friends was pulled over for driving while black; he asked me if there was any legal recourse...) with little effect (... my friend was unsuccessful in getting either officer disciplined or suspended). I suspect if one studied civil rights for blacks and desegregation, one would see more strategic decisions being effective than emotional decisions being effective.

Further, and this is not necessarily the purpose of this thread, there are a lot of other factors that go into the broader issue. Rand Paul pointed out the militarization of the police, the war on drugs, the overwhelming number of blacks and Hispanics in prison and mandatory minimums. Others (perhaps supporters of police officers in these situations) point to black crime rates, education issues, and job problems.

While I understand that protests can be effective (and the Ferguson protests certainly were), they can only affect change if there is something strategic behind them that gets the general, concerned, voting public on the right side of an issue. Just look at any particular solution, then look at the issue, and then see how the issue became important enough to warrant a solution - it's because the issue was applicable to a broader spectrum of people or because enough people cared.

codeblue1018 wrote:Greek,

I'll respond soon.

Okay. I'll add one more thing - You ask us to put ourselves in the shoes of the officer. I ask you to put yourself in the shoes of any black person (seriously though, go talk to a few black people who live in or around cities - being harrassed by police officers due to skin color is a regular occurrence). And then I ask you to put yourself in the shoes of a black person who is in the process of being shot, lethally, six times because you punched a police officer through a car.

TGD, I'm about as libertarian as they come. I'm also a realist. The big problem you have (as do Mets, et.al.) is this particular lie/irrational/impossible standard-

thegreekdog wrote:
Police departments are supposed to protect and serve citizens.

The sooner people understand that the above is not true, the better. It's not true now and it never was. For proof of this in legal terms you should understand all too well, TGD, I simply refer you to Warren v District of Columbia SCOTUS ruling. The SCOTUS ruled like they did because of prior precedent, that the police have no constitutional duty to protect or serve the citizens.

The police protect and serve the State.

TGD wrote: Police officers are supposed to be highly trained and experienced individuals that should have the capacity to deal, non-lethally, with people who may do them harm (or harm others). When a police officer deals with someone lethally, he or she should be subject to AT LEAST the same standards as everyone else.

Har! Yeah, it'd be nice wouldn't it? But can I ask you, given the assumption that the police exist to serve the State and not the citizens, what good would it do the State to allow it's agents to be held to the same standards as the rest of the populace? Looking at it from the often short sided view of the State, of course. Long term it's a losing proposition for the State to hammer it's own people, but history shows us that this is what always happens eventually with government, that the power invested in said government at some point always turns it's force upon it's own citizens. And then the gig is up for the State and you have a certain amount of chaos where our rights actually originate from and out of that chaos comes a new State and the whole process just starts all over again.

For all our rights, all of what we think of as moral, ethical or "fair", always originate on a battlefield. What good is it to hold up the constitution and say "You can't do that!" just to be gunned down right after? The constitution itself originated from war, did it not? Had the Founding Father's lost the war they would have swung from nooses and we'd have never even heard of the constitution.

And these are the true spoils of war, spoils that can be handed down to the next generation so on and so on. But the future generations forget and we always find ourselves right back in the same spot. Over and over throughout history.

TGD wrote:If I was sitting in my car and someone came and attacked me and I shot that person six times, do you think I should go to trial? Should I at least be indicted? And if the answer is yes to either or both of those questions, why should a police officer not go to trial or be indicted for the same thing, especially consider the police officer is highly trained and comes with the full backing of government?

Officer Wilson gave an interview. Highly trained you say, with the assumption that police officers are highly trained to resolve situations without extreme violence. Maybe they are, but in Wilson's interview he said, and I quote- "I sleep with a clear conscience. I did what I was trained to do."

Haha! I'd have asked him, "Trained to do what? Killed unarmed men?" Hahaha! Anyway, Wilson by his own admission did what he was trained to do. So did the officers who killed Garner and so did the rookie cop who murdered that 12 year old boy. They simply did what they were trained to do, if the police officer ever feels his life is threatened then he is to fire his weapon until the perceived threat is no longer a threat.

So basically all a cop has to do is what was parodied in South park, a cop simply has to say before discharging his weapon- "He's comin' right for us!" and let loose.




So while I support attempts at curbing police powers, I would prefer people to be at least realistic. The police brutality is really a symptom of the real problem. The irony is that some like Mets who are all for curbing the police on the one hand, are quite fine with the other hand to petition the State for more control over people's lives for his pet peeves and pet issues. All the while never considering that giving any more power to any section of government ultimately increases controls over all aspects of the State, even at the police level.
And then there are people like you TGD, who want police to be held to a standard that is not acceptable to a majority of the elite. For the money power requires a police that are free to enforce the will of the State with as few barriers as possible for the money power and the State are partners.
I do of course have some hope that you TGD understand at least a tad bit of that last bit at least. The people protesting, I have no such hope in them, sadly.

But I think people in general should at least be aware of one small detail that they should remember at all times when dealing with police of any kind. Sociopaths gravitate towards certain jobs and police officer is one of the most desired jobs that sociopaths aspire to. So people should keep in mind that at any time they are dealing with police for any reason that they should at the very least be aware that they have a better than decent chance that they are dealing with a bona fide sociopath. With a gun and the power of the State behind them.

So it would be wise to always keep one's wits about themselves when dealing with police officers.

patches70 wrote:The sooner people understand that the above is not true, the better. It's not true now and it never was. For proof of this in legal terms you should understand all too well, TGD, I simply refer you to Warren v District of Columbia SCOTUS ruling. The SCOTUS ruled like they did because of prior precedent, that the police have no constitutional duty to protect or serve the citizens.

You probably should be more careful if you're going to reference legal doctrine at TGD. Warren v. DC was a case heard by the local court in DC; it was not a federal case and was not argued in front of SCOTUS. (That being said, I believe similar cases have been ruled on in the same way at the level of SCOTUS.) Also, that case found that police officers do not have special obligations to specific individual members of the public, not that police officers are not obligated to protect the public. In fact, the doctrine behind the decision was that police officers are obligated to protect the public at large, but that jurors do not have sufficient expertise in how to manage police agencies to justify second-guessing their actions and determining how police should best respond to particular crimes. That is, while the case of what happened to Warren and the others was despicable, if the court awarded compensation or otherwise punished the police department, it would be dictating how the police should manage their resources, a line that they are not willing to cross.

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:(3) It would matter a lot more if it was Eric Garner we were fighting for because that person is completely innocent, both figuratively and literally.

No he is not. His death happened while he was resisting arrest -- that's a crime -- and he has a pretty damn long arrest record leading up to that incident. In any meaningful way, he is at least as guilty as Michael Brown and possibly more. So if your theory is that we should be getting behind the person who is cleaner with respect to the law, then you should sure as hell not be backing Eric Garner. That alone is enough to dismiss your perspective on how people are reacting. You're just empirically incorrect. Garner's case got universal condemnation because it was clear that Garner posed no real threat to the officer. It had little to do with the fact that a "crime" was being committed. Your original point would at least make more sense if your argument was instead that we should be backing the person that everyone agrees was wrongfully killed, instead of that we should be backing the person who wasn't a "criminal." They were both criminals. Now you're walking that back, which is fine, but I was responding to your original argument, not your new one.

I don't think either should be the poster boy, as there is no evidence Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown due to racial motivation; Garner, the police were not trying to kill Eric Garner. They were trying to place under arrest a severely large man with just as severely large a criminal record as long as my Johnson. I can't excuse the police in NY, but that by no means assumes I auto-excuse Garner either. I think, irregardless of the crime, the police were probably gonna arrest this guy because they were getting the feeling Garner did not accept that what he was doing was a crime, did not respect their authoritahz and threw it in their face. I think police told him to turn around and he would be placed under arrest and that police were going in to SHOW him the crime is very real and they're gonna charge/ticket him, and I would bet he said 'No' or "wait wait wait..... I still don't understand!' And that is just the kind of reason why there is a jail and why you can get thrown in jail and what jail means and how police use jail, the concept is to SHOW people that what they did was illegal; jail forces the point on those who just don't seem to 'understand'. Have to remind peeps here who don't know, I am not in support of this ridiculously excessive enforcement of ridiculously excessive taxes levied. It's the EXACT SAME F"N reason argue for pot NOT to be "legalized/TAXED' STFU about 'but we can tax it!!!! Think of the schools we could build with their money!!!!!' you don't want your weed 'legalized' you want it DECRIMINALIZED Same exact reason I argue no government permission slips for marriage. Take the government out of it! But we just keep making the government bigger and bigger, in charge of more and more, with greater and greater authority. This is what it looks like when they try to control and regulate and manage everything. Take a guess how this story ends up....

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

-George Washington

And in general, I just want all people to remember that our entire viewpoint is based on 2 minutes of video of something that took WAYYYYY longer than 2 minutes to precipitate. It is kinda chilling to know humans are so easy to control, whip us up in a RAH-RAH pre-emptive invasion of Iraq everyone supports, or wind up our emotions and tap into racial tensions with a jack-hammer and watch us re-act and heartily encourage the backlash all the way. Sad that our people's emotions and fears and our desires are just the strings harped on by High art of Kanly puppeteer masters; more and more inanimate mindless objects that are fun to animate and can even harness the objects to build power for themselves.

patches70 wrote:TGD, I'm about as libertarian as they come. I'm also a realist. The big problem you have (as do Mets, et.al.) is this particular lie/irrational/impossible standard-

thegreekdog wrote:
Police departments are supposed to protect and serve citizens.

The sooner people understand that the above is not true, the better. It's not true now and it never was. For proof of this in legal terms you should understand all too well, TGD, I simply refer you to Warren v District of Columbia SCOTUS ruling. The SCOTUS ruled like they did because of prior precedent, that the police have no constitutional duty to protect or serve the citizens.

The police protect and serve the State.

TGD wrote: Police officers are supposed to be highly trained and experienced individuals that should have the capacity to deal, non-lethally, with people who may do them harm (or harm others). When a police officer deals with someone lethally, he or she should be subject to AT LEAST the same standards as everyone else.

Har! Yeah, it'd be nice wouldn't it? But can I ask you, given the assumption that the police exist to serve the State and not the citizens, what good would it do the State to allow it's agents to be held to the same standards as the rest of the populace? Looking at it from the often short sided view of the State, of course. Long term it's a losing proposition for the State to hammer it's own people, but history shows us that this is what always happens eventually with government, that the power invested in said government at some point always turns it's force upon it's own citizens. And then the gig is up for the State and you have a certain amount of chaos where our rights actually originate from and out of that chaos comes a new State and the whole process just starts all over again.

For all our rights, all of what we think of as moral, ethical or "fair", always originate on a battlefield. What good is it to hold up the constitution and say "You can't do that!" just to be gunned down right after? The constitution itself originated from war, did it not? Had the Founding Father's lost the war they would have swung from nooses and we'd have never even heard of the constitution.

And these are the true spoils of war, spoils that can be handed down to the next generation so on and so on. But the future generations forget and we always find ourselves right back in the same spot. Over and over throughout history.

TGD wrote:If I was sitting in my car and someone came and attacked me and I shot that person six times, do you think I should go to trial? Should I at least be indicted? And if the answer is yes to either or both of those questions, why should a police officer not go to trial or be indicted for the same thing, especially consider the police officer is highly trained and comes with the full backing of government?

Officer Wilson gave an interview. Highly trained you say, with the assumption that police officers are highly trained to resolve situations without extreme violence. Maybe they are, but in Wilson's interview he said, and I quote- "I sleep with a clear conscience. I did what I was trained to do."

Haha! I'd have asked him, "Trained to do what? Killed unarmed men?" Hahaha! Anyway, Wilson by his own admission did what he was trained to do. So did the officers who killed Garner and so did the rookie cop who murdered that 12 year old boy. They simply did what they were trained to do, if the police officer ever feels his life is threatened then he is to fire his weapon until the perceived threat is no longer a threat.

So basically all a cop has to do is what was parodied in South park, a cop simply has to say before discharging his weapon- "He's comin' right for us!" and let loose.




So while I support attempts at curbing police powers, I would prefer people to be at least realistic. The police brutality is really a symptom of the real problem. The irony is that some like Mets who are all for curbing the police on the one hand, are quite fine with the other hand to petition the State for more control over people's lives for his pet peeves and pet issues. All the while never considering that giving any more power to any section of government ultimately increases controls over all aspects of the State, even at the police level.
And then there are people like you TGD, who want police to be held to a standard that is not acceptable to a majority of the elite. For the money power requires a police that are free to enforce the will of the State with as few barriers as possible for the money power and the State are partners.
I do of course have some hope that you TGD understand at least a tad bit of that last bit at least. The people protesting, I have no such hope in them, sadly.

But I think people in general should at least be aware of one small detail that they should remember at all times when dealing with police of any kind. Sociopaths gravitate towards certain jobs and police officer is one of the most desired jobs that sociopaths aspire to. So people should keep in mind that at any time they are dealing with police for any reason that they should at the very least be aware that they have a better than decent chance that they are dealing with a bona fide sociopath. With a gun and the power of the State behind them.

So it would be wise to always keep one's wits about themselves when dealing with police officers.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with everything you've typed here.

(Apologies in advance to others)...

Phatscotty - Do you think that police departments have too much power, are given too much leeway and/or benefit of the doubt, and/or target minorities (over others) (understanding that you may view such targeting to be valid based on statistics)?

Alternatively (or additionally) do you understand that your consistent (and applauded, at least by me) railing against the state on certain issues, supported by your belief in the Constitution and individual rights and then your almost blind support of the state on certain other issues are hypocritical views? Do you at least understand that you cannot have it both ways?

Holy crap, am I patches?

The whole structure is skewed. People give the government money and authority. It's extortion, since giving them that money leads to more "crime" and requires more money. The name broken window policing is great.

-The first boss of all bosses of the American mafia got his start by breaking windows and selling his window protection services in New York.

-It is way to increase GDP via maintaining a problem; broken-window economics.

-Harsh penalties for petty crime, turning petty criminals into more dangerous ones.

As a country the goal should be to reduce the number of criminals, not mass produce them. But when the issue is discussed, the key players all have more to gain by enacting a persistent problem than getting to its root.

But this then becomes part of the social contract; the people say we give you more or less free reign to do what you will. The government then creates a massive disparity, the worst prison conditions imaginable, the most prisoners, the most expensive system, and unlimited authority over life, property and family. If your kid is at school and the teachers ask an immigrant to the country if her single dad sees her naked, they go and take the daughter and kill the dad when he resists.

Because, by the words of PS:

Freedom! Immediately submit to authority!

My kid's naked as soon as he gets out of my sight. I have to put his pants back on him all day long.

If the government were the people's company and they were spending vast sums on a self destructive policy, the management wouldn't be there long, the policy would be changed and the company become more healthy.

Chris Rock gave an interview. He basically said, black people haven't made progress, white people have; they have shed some of their cruel prejudices. The government is the same. When they stop harassing the population, it won't be an improvement on their part, it will just be them stopping from doing stupid shit.

We have a lot of real estate that developers are hoping to rent out and they are hoping that their friends in the government are going to dump clients right in their lap and collect the rent for them from the rest of the population. And they do, cuz freedom.

I can also illustrate that when people use government to influence the behavior of others that it leads directly to needless deaths like Mr Garner's.

Start with the assumption that Mr Garner was selling cigs on the street corner. I don't know if he actually was, but that seems to be what is reported as to the reason the cops wanted to arrest Garner in the first place. So from this point forward lets assume that it is absolutely true that Garner was selling cigs on the street corner illegally.

So, Garner is selling cigs illegally on the street corner by circumventing NY's tax laws regarding cigs. Thus, Garner is engaged in criminal activity. The police had every legal right to arrest him and every legal right to use whatever force they deem necessary to accomplish that.

So lets look at what led Garner to such desperate action as to commit a criminal offense so blatantly on the street.

Way back when some white knight decided it would be a good idea that everyone stop smoking. The problem is, that this white knight couldn't convince everyone to quit smoking and had absolutely no power what so ever to compel anyone to do anything. So white knight comes up with the bright idea that if he could convince government to get involved he could be more successful in getting people to do what he thinks they should do.

So white knight lobbies with politicians who inform white knight "So sorry kid, even though we'd like to, we can't make a law outlawing cigs because <insert many myriad of reasons here>". White knight says "Oh, you might not be able to outlaw cigs, but you do have the power of the tax. And you can use the power of the tax to influence people's behavior."

The idea behind cigarette taxes is to make them so expensive that people will be willing quit. Now this is a kind of tax that a politician can get behind. The politician sees in his mind the revenue that can be generated and out of his filthy mouth he can say "This tax isn't to get your money from you but is to save your life!" So now the politician can see benevolence in this tax and the white knight can clap his hands in glee that he convinced the government to try and make people do what the white knight wants people to do.

So the cig tax is enacted and the white knight is dismayed that people still haven't quit smoking, so he lobbies the politician and says "people are still smoking, the tax needs to be higher". Which the politician happily agrees because that just means more revenue.

And so it goes in certain areas, like NY, where the cigarette taxes are so high that it costs some $14-$15 to buy just one pack. And what white knight and politician never considered (though they should have) when they concocted their scheme to use taxes to influence individual's behavior, is that these taxes did not lower the demand a single bit. Not one iota. But it did drive the market underground and a thriving black market emerges.

People smuggle cigs in from out of state, circumventing the NY cig tax and sell cigs to people at a lower cost than what could be obtained legally. Black markets have no legal basis, thus when there are disputes those disputes cannot be resolved in a court, violence rises. Because that is usually the only recourse when disputes arise in black markets.

Now black markets arise from rational human behavior. There is a store that sells a pack of smokes at $15 or this guy on the street selling a pack for $10, it's rational for someone to say "I'll buy the $10 pack". It doesn't matter if you label that transaction criminal, it's still not only understandable why people go the black market route, it rational.

So, in all tax issues, not only are there the tax collecting process involved, there is always enforcement. Tax laws have to be enforced because if taxes were not enforced then no one would pay them voluntarily (and that's also rational BTW, to not pay taxes if you are not forced to).

It is this enforcement process and the consequences of that the do gooders, white knights and politicians always seem to ignore or forget when they come up with their schemes to use taxing power to influence people's behavior. There is always going to be people who will not change their behavior and will seek alternate routes to circumvent such attempts. Which puts the cops into the position that they have to use force to uphold said tax enforcement.

A Mets will advocate a carbon tax on people and ignore the fact that in doing so he only creates the environment to gives rise to a black market. Mets will want those carbon taxes enforced and there will invariably people who will do whatever they can to get around those taxes. Which leads to the cops having to confront people and use violence which leads to deaths which leads to cries of racism, police brutality and all the other noise.

Garner's sad death started when some numbnut with very poor critical thinking decided it was a good idea to use taxes as a way to get people to stop smoking. Not to mention, all those tax revenues that the politician thought he was going to get had to be diverted into law enforcement to combat the black market that arose because of those taxes.

So when Mets says sarcastically-

Mets wrote:Indeed. We should only be standing up for the rights of clean, wholesome black men. Petty criminals deserve to be choked to death by the police.

on one hand and with the other hand-

Mets wrote:You just have to support the notion that selling untaxed cigarettes does not warrant a death sentence administered by a police officer on the street.

I have to ask, what issue is he addressing exactly? The police used force as they are allowed to and it resulted in Garner's death. I don't think anyone believes the cops intended to kill Garner. Certainly, negligent of the cops, but that's not quite the same as "death sentence" and I've seen Mets advocating that it is indeed right and correct to use taxes to influence people's behavior.

It is the latter that actually lead to Garner's death, because people think it's a good idea to use taxing power to influence people's behavior.

Obamacare makes the same argument, of which I've read Mets advocate. That those who do not have insurance have to pay a tax (yes, it's a tax just like it was argued before the SCOTUS) and that this tax will keep on increasing until it forces people to get insurance. Whether the individual thinks they need that insurance or not.
I've seen Mets argue that using carbon taxes to get people to use less energy is a good idea.

And I say that not only is it immoral to use taxes in such a way (it's a form of coercion any way you look at it and coercion is never a good idea) but it leads to consequences in which actual people are not only killed but also unjustly treated.

So the next time a politician or a white knight tries to tell you that they want to use taxes to get people to do this or that or to get people to stop doing this or that, then you tell them to STFU and think about the consequences of what happens when you effectively hold a gun to a person's head and say "Or Else". Because that is what we do when we enact and enforce taxes of any kind. Pay the tax or else. And getting choked to death on the side of the street certainly qualifies as "Or Else".

Taxes have only a single purpose, to generate revenue. If people try to use taxes for any other reason, such as getting people to stop smoking, or wasting energy, or wasting water, or any other thing some people want other to people to do or not do, then you are going down a road of which only gets darker and darker with real world consequences that in some cases leads to needless deaths.

And if anyone thinks the police are brutal, try the IRS! Those are the most brutal fuckers one could ever have the misfortune of ever having to deal with on an adversarial role. Those bastards will freeze your bank accounts, repo your car, your house, the clothes on your back, toss you in the street or in jail and if you resist you'll be shot dead by, er, well, the cops or an IRS enforcement agent.


It's a thugocracy for sure, and the cops are the low rung on the thug ladder. And it's all enabled by the white knights who always turn to government to do what the white knight failed to convince people to do non violently. How quickly the white knights find themselves shocked! Shocked I say! to see such things happen to people like Garner when it was the do-gooder's own machinations that lead directly to such deaths. Why, it couldn't have been because of the politicians and do-gooder's actions, it has to be racism at the root. Such is the world is seen by such.


So for the long post. I hope some find it somewhat entertaining and somewhat enlightening.
All I can ask is whenever one says "There ought ta be a law!" at some grievance or other, that they stop for a moment, take a deep breath, relax and go about their day and leave others alone.

When tested all major brands of cigarettes contained freebase nicotine. Banning freebase nicotine from cigarettes would make them less addictive.

When ecigs were introduced to Europe, cigarette sales experienced their single most dramatic decrease, 8%. British parliament then started legislating against them. They are said to be 1000 times safer than cigarettes. Nova Scotia just banned flavoured ecigs, while ecigs with nicotine were already banned. Don't want any safe competition.

They know what they are doing. It's not a mistake. The outcomes we see are intended.

patches70 wrote:So when Mets says sarcastically-

Mets wrote:Indeed. We should only be standing up for the rights of clean, wholesome black men. Petty criminals deserve to be choked to death by the police.

on one hand and with the other hand-

Mets wrote:You just have to support the notion that selling untaxed cigarettes does not warrant a death sentence administered by a police officer on the street.

I have to ask, what issue is he addressing exactly? The police used force as they are allowed to and it resulted in Garner's death.

The chokehold that was used by the police officer was not permitted by NYC police regulations. Should be obvious now why.

I've seen Mets argue that using carbon taxes to get people to use less energy is a good idea.

And I say that not only is it immoral to use taxes in such a way (it's a form of coercion any way you look at it and coercion is never a good idea) but it leads to consequences in which actual people are not only killed but also unjustly treated.

Well your argument is reasonable if you completely ignore the reasons why people advocated for the tax in the first place. When I advocate for a tax on carbon, it is because your behavior harms me when you burn fossil fuels. If I advocate for a tax on cigarettes, it is because your behavior harms me when you smoke a cigarette. If I advocate for a tax on alcohol, it is because those who get drunk endanger the lives of others behind the wheel. Yes, of course coercion against certain behaviors leads to violence in some cases, when people do not obey the laws of the state. (My protest in the Garner case has to do with the manner in which the violence was applied, and the lack of consequences for that; but also, with the fact that violence is applied disproportionately to those who are minorities.) But the justification for that coercion is that the behavior is harmful to others. I cannot just neutrally "leave others alone" because they are not leaving me alone when they engage in economic activities with external effects. Choosing not to advocate for a carbon tax (say) is like admitting that I have no problem with people violating the property rights and physical health of others. Libertarians should not be OK with such behavior.

That doesn't mean there's not reasonable room for debate. For example, there's not strong evidence that cigarette taxes are actually what caused the sharp decline in cigarette usage over the last few decades. But there are other cases where taxes and regulation did cause substantial decrease in the unwanted behavior, like with the Montreal Protocol. Ozone-depleting substances are decreasing in the atmosphere, despite black market trade of chlorofluorocarbons. When that happens, tax revenue to the government declines. Your theory is therefore not universally true, and it should not be applied as such. It is true that politicians need to better consider unintended consequences, but that does not give us a pass to ignore intended consequences. The libertarian worldview, where everyone can just go about their own business, is a fantasy in the 21st century, where so much of the activities one engages in have real (direct and indirect) consequences on those both near to you and also far away from you. It might well still be the case that government regulation does more harm than good in many situations, but it is absurd to pretend that the harms do not exist.

Mostly unrelated: I don't support a carbon tax to get people to use less energy, I support a carbon tax to get people to obtain a higher percentage of that energy from non-greenhouse-gas emitting fuels.

Sorry Mets, CFCs have substitutes and the government isn't losing profit.

If cigarettes are harmful, then legislation can be used to make them safer. Did anyone bring up freebase nicotine yet?

_sabotage_ wrote:Sorry Mets, CFCs have substitutes and the government isn't losing profit.

Ozone-depleting chemical consumption dropped by 97% in the US from 1989 to 2005. The base tax rate started at $1.37 per pound, and increased to $9.85 per pound in 2005. That is, over that 16 year period, the consumption rate fell 13 times faster than the tax rate rose.

I don't think you get me.

But that's not new.

_sabotage_ wrote:I don't think you get me.

But that's not new.

I do get you. You like to make assertions not backed by evidence, and then run away from the argument and switch to something else when someone fact checks you.

Oh, so there are no substitutes for CFCs and we just stopped using them and whatever they were being used for we just abandoned? Knowing that I published a link to this a few months ago doesn't faze you. Nothing fazes you.

_sabotage_ wrote:Oh, so there are no substitutes for CFCs and we just stopped using them and whatever they were being used for we just abandoned? Knowing that I published a link to this a few months ago doesn't faze you. Nothing fazes you.

1) I responded to your second claim: that the government isn't "losing profit." This is precisely what I mean -- you're bringing up something that I wasn't even responding to. Either respond to my argument, or admit that your claim is not factually correct.

2) The point of the Montreal Protocol was to phase out ozone-depleting substances. Since ozone-depleting substances are used in industrial processes and equipment, that meant that substitutes, that were not ozone-depleting, had to be found. Of course substitutes for CFCs were developed -- that was exactly the point of the law: to find substances that do similar things but that do not deplete stratospheric ozone. Now, it turns out that some of the substitutes that were brought into common use, such as hydrofluorocarbons, are greenhouse gases -- they just do not share the ozone-depleting effect of the greenhouse gases they replaced. (And, as a result, amendments to the Montreal Protocol to cover HFCs are being discussed now.) But that does not change the fact that the Montreal Protocol was straight out successful in turning around the ozone depletion trend.