PDA

View Full Version : Cop Saves 2-Year-Old Girl From Deranged Knife-Wielding Man




Brett85
10-24-2013, 05:04 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/01/caught-on-tape-hero-cop-saves-2-year-old-girl-from-deranged-knife-wielding-man-with-one-very-accurate-shot/


According to police, 37-year-old Sammie Wallace grabbed a toddler from her mother’s shopping cart and held a knife to her throat. Police released video and 911 audio from the June 17 incident last week.

Believing that the child had been harmed by Wallace, a heroic police officer, Capt. David Huff, shot the man at point-blank range. The child was unharmed in the horrifying ordeal.

Wallace had no prior connection to the child or her mother, police said.

AngryCanadian
10-24-2013, 05:10 PM
These cops are rare. But for once a cop did the right thing rather then cops killing someone innocent.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 05:12 PM
Video:

http://newsok.com/midwest-city-police-release-video-of-standoff-with-knife-wielding-suspect/article/3857152

jllundqu
10-24-2013, 05:27 PM
Anarchists proceed to bash this 'nazi-gestapo-goostepping-pig' in:

4.....
3.....
2.....
1.....

ronpaulfollower999
10-24-2013, 05:31 PM
So one out of 10,000?

phill4paul
10-24-2013, 05:32 PM
Anarchists proceed to bash this 'nazi-gestapo-goostepping-pig' in:

4.....
3.....
2.....
1.....

He did what anyone else should have done in that escalating situation. Unfortunately, there was probably not an armed citizen in that store besides those with badges. What do you want? A cookie?

aGameOfThrones
10-24-2013, 05:41 PM
Anarchists proceed to bash this 'nazi-gestapo-goostepping-pig' in:

4.....
3.....
2.....
1.....


http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb34jnMQgU1qzxyzqo1_500.gif

Brett85
10-24-2013, 05:43 PM
Even if there had been an armed citizen there, it would've been pretty risky for that person to take a shot, since the man was holding the girl and had a knife to her throat. The police waited a long time to shoot this guy, until he basically began a "countdown" and said that he was going to kill her. Then he got shot when his attention was diverted.

phill4paul
10-24-2013, 05:49 PM
Even if there had been an armed citizen there, it would've been pretty risky for that person to take a shot, since the man was holding the girl and had a knife to her throat. The police waited a long time to shoot this guy, until he basically began a "countdown" and said that he was going to kill her. Then he got shot when his attention was diverted.

So it's risky if a "person" did this but "heroic" when a police officer does it? :rolleyes:

Anti Federalist
10-24-2013, 05:49 PM
In other news, my refrigerator is cold and my car started this morning.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 05:54 PM
So it's risky if a "person" did this but "heroic" when a police officer does it? :rolleyes:

The police officer only did it when he absolutely had to, when it seemed clear that the man was getting ready to kill the child. Of course, you could have a private citizen that would be smart in that regard and would wait until he absolutely had to take a shot to take the shot. I'm just saying that it's risky to shoot someone when they're holding a little kid.

dannno
10-24-2013, 05:55 PM
The police officer only did it when he absolutely had to, when it seemed clear that the man was getting ready to kill the child. Of course, you could have a private citizen that would be smart in that regard and would wait until he absolutely had to take a shot to take the shot. I'm just saying that it's risky to shoot someone when they're holding a little kid.

I wouldn't have waited, he could have slit the kids throat at any time.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 05:55 PM
I just thought I'd provide some balance to the daily anti cop threads. :) Of course I don't deny that cops sometimes do bad things as well. But there needs to be balance and perspective.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 05:56 PM
I wouldn't have waited.

Yeah, I was just thinking about what I would've done had I been there and had a gun. I don't think I would've taken a shot right away, because I wouldn't want to take the risk of killing the girl.

phill4paul
10-24-2013, 05:57 PM
The police officer only did it when he absolutely had to, when it seemed clear that the man was getting ready to kill the child. Of course, you could have a private citizen that would be smart in that regard and would wait until he absolutely had to take a shot to take the shot. I'm just saying that it's risky to shoot someone when they're holding a little kid.

That's why I clarified it as an "escalating" situation. Yes, it is risky to shoot someone when they are holding a little kid.

Anti Federalist
10-24-2013, 05:57 PM
I just thought I'd provide some balance to the daily anti cop threads. :) Of course I don't deny that cops sometimes do bad things as well. But there needs to be balance and perspective.

*sigh*

It's not "anti cop".

It's not "cop bashing".

Brett85
10-24-2013, 05:58 PM
*sigh*

It's not "anti cop".

It's not "cop bashing".

Then what exactly is it if you constantly criticize the police and are in favor of abolishing the police?

heavenlyboy34
10-24-2013, 06:05 PM
There's a difference between a "cop" and a "peace officer". The fellow in the story behaved as the latter. Friday he may become a "cop" and shoot someone's dog for lolz.

Anti-Neocon
10-24-2013, 06:06 PM
These cops are rare. But for once a cop did the right thing rather then cops killing someone innocent.
Actually, they're not rare. Most of them do their job when called upon.

If you look at the daily activities of cops, most of them are doing a job that others wouldn't want. Highlighting cop abuse does little to show that cops in general are terrible, despicable human beings.

We need to take a reasonable position that focuses on the offending cops, rather than collectivizing all cops into some dark, evil force which they're not.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
10-24-2013, 06:34 PM
I just thought I'd provide some balance to the daily anti cop threads. :) Of course I don't deny that cops sometimes do bad things as well. But there needs to be balance and perspective.

If you view the larger context, then forums such as RPF provide balance to what is on TV and even radio. TV's COPS, similar shows, and the local news was a one trick pony for decades. Nothing but local news PR for the local police departments. Nothing but shrewd marketing and opportunistic editing for COPS.

New telecommunications media like forums, Youtube, alternative streaming news, etc. are now providing balance to a previously one-sided and often very skewed perspective.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
10-24-2013, 06:35 PM
Then what exactly is it if you constantly criticize the police...

Police criticism.

tod evans
10-24-2013, 06:40 PM
Good little copper.

Would a non-cop shooting the nut get the same accolades?

Anti Federalist
10-24-2013, 06:42 PM
Then what exactly is it if you constantly criticize the police and are in favor of abolishing the police?


We need to take a reasonable position that focuses on the offending cops, rather than collectivizing all cops into some dark, evil force which they're not.

Neither position is reasonable, if you refuse to see what cops have become, an occupying army.

AFPVet
10-24-2013, 06:43 PM
In some ways, a gun would've been worse. If the subject holds a firearm to someone's head, you are going to have to wait until the weapon is pointed elsewhere. If you shoot someone in the head, it triggers what is called a 'cadaveric spasm' which causes universal tightening of the muscles. This is why snipers hold off until the weapon is pointed elsewhere or the subject's finger is no longer on the trigger.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
10-24-2013, 06:45 PM
We need to take a reasonable position that focuses on the offending cops, rather than collectivizing all cops into some dark, evil force which they're not.

We're not talking about bad apple syndrome. We're talking about a good majority, or all, of police participating in unjustly shooting a dog or not being critical of those who shoot dogs unjustly. It's departments setting up roadblocks with plenty of officer participation. It's departments knocking in doors for a bag of weed on a coffee table.

Participation in these events makes you bad as an individual. You can do one of three things with these acts: speak up, quit. or participate. You either do what's right or not do what's right. You don't hide behind a department. You either take personal responsibility or you don't.

heavenlyboy34
10-24-2013, 06:53 PM
We're not talking about bad apple syndrome. We're talking about a good majority, or all, of police participating in unjustly shooting a dog or not being critical of those who shoot dogs unjustly. It's departments setting up roadblocks with plenty of officer participation. It's departments knocking in doors for a bag of weed on a coffee table.

Participation in these events makes you bad as an individual. You can do one of three things with these acts: speak up, quit. or participate. You either do what's right or not do what's right. You don't hide behind a department. You either take personal responsibility or you don't.
That^^ In the olden days, compliance to evil or illegal orders/policies was as wrong as choosing to do said act purposefully. This was famously recognized as the "Nuremberg Defense" during the Nurmeberg trials.

kcchiefs6465
10-24-2013, 06:55 PM
Anarchists proceed to bash this 'nazi-gestapo-goostepping-pig' in:

4.....
3.....
2.....
1.....
Because you get paid in sheep blood doesn't mean much to me. I know a lot of "cool" cops too. They don't bully or harass everyone they meet. Throw 'em a parade. Thing is, they still have to enforce unjust laws and in the even bigger picture draw their salaries from the sweat of many. (of whom some do not use their services) Commendable.

And without the police there the child would have been killed. I mean it's possible, sure. Same as if he was there it was possible. Same as when he took the shot it was possible. A good ending to a bad situation. If it went the other way, as it often does in other circumstances, I'd hear nothing but whining of how hard the job is. (not from you but from people in general)

silverhandorder
10-24-2013, 06:55 PM
Then what exactly is it if you constantly criticize the police and are in favor of abolishing the police?

This thread is the reason why people mistakenly call you a statist. I am referring to your signature. Your world view is different from mine in this regard. I don't agree with people who think police should be abolished. They are like luddites when matters of social cooperation are concerned. However you have to understand that cops are a government job like any other government job. That means that they have job security and a monopoly. They attract a certain kind of person, and that is more then proven by the threads here "bashing" cops. Further more they get special treatment by the law and their fellow enforcers. On top of all that you come from a tradition where cops are put on a pedestal and anything that challenges that view brings you emotional pain. Just look at how you are defending this cop that have done something that was #1 his job to do and #2 any sane person with ability to shoot would have done as well. Your spin of course was that thank god we had a trained officer of the law there. My view is different. Shame that guns are so regulated that it is cost prohibitive to hire armed guards for a mall. After all can you imagine a mall hiring armed guards? In this culture and legal climate? A nightmare.

Anyways I wish you well and I think I will write more to you when we come across.


Actually, they're not rare. Most of them do their job when called upon.

If you look at the daily activities of cops, most of them are doing a job that others wouldn't want. Highlighting cop abuse does little to show that cops in general are terrible, despicable human beings.

We need to take a reasonable position that focuses on the offending cops, rather than collectivizing all cops into some dark, evil force which they're not.

I am conflicted on this. Any cop that is likely to respond to our argument would not be offended if he is told that he is in a protected profession that attracts thugs. He would probably realize this and leave the profession before you talk to him.

However I do believe that we need a police force (a private police force) so I am not knocking on the profession but only at what it is today.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 07:04 PM
We're not talking about bad apple syndrome. We're talking about a good majority, or all, of police participating in unjustly shooting a dog or not being critical of those who shoot dogs unjustly.

What evidence do you have that the bad cops are a "majority?"

Brett85
10-24-2013, 07:09 PM
However you have to understand that cops are a government job like any other government job. That means that they have job security and a monopoly. today.

To some extent. But there have certainly been examples of cops who have been fired.


On top of all that you come from a tradition where cops are put on a pedestal and anything that challenges that view brings you emotional pain.

Not really. If you compared my views and what I've said to what the average American believes, I would probably come across as being "anti cop" and "weak on crime" when compared to the average person. It's only compared to people here on these forums that I'm "tough on crime" and "engage in hero worship of the police."
.

silverhandorder
10-24-2013, 07:20 PM
Average american has went through 12 years of government school and was raised in a culture that worships cops/authority.

And even so I think it is people that surround you. At my work it is split even between people who could care less about cops and people who worship authority.

heavenlyboy34
10-24-2013, 07:21 PM
This thread is the reason why people mistakenly call you a statist. I am referring to your signature. Your world view is different from mine in this regard. I don't agree with people who think police should be abolished. They are like luddites when matters of social cooperation are concerned.
Not believing in cops=luddite? WTF?:confused: So teh FFs (who are so revered around here) were also luddites?


However I do believe that we need a police force (a private police force) so I am not knocking on the profession but only at what it is today.
Why?

silverhandorder
10-24-2013, 07:39 PM
Not believing in cops=luddite? WTF?:confused: So teh FFs (who are so revered around here) were also luddites?

Founding Fathers were more like Traditional Conservative then someone who would abolish all police forces. You can't honestly think that people who voted for a document that establishes national army would not have accepted the idea of police.


Why?

Because there are criminals and unstable people and they would exist in any society to some degree and to that degree we need people employed as security.

heavenlyboy34
10-24-2013, 07:42 PM
Founding Fathers were more like Traditional Conservative then someone who would abolish all police forces. You can't honestly think that people who voted for a document that establishes national army would not have accepted the idea of police.


That didn't happen. With a few exceptions, standing armies were not popular. The constitution provides for a navy and militia, not a standing national army. I encourage you to look into the history of "police" in the US. It was a sort of civic duty rather than a profession in the 18th century.


Because there are criminals and unstable people and they would exist in any society to some degree and to that degree we need people employed as security.

Police are not "security". The courts at all levels have upheld this.

Cutlerzzz
10-24-2013, 07:46 PM
Anarchists proceed to bash this 'nazi-gestapo-goostepping-pig' in:

4.....
3.....
2.....
1.....

I don't think Anarchist are any more obsessed with the police than any other demographic on here.

FloralScent
10-24-2013, 07:49 PM
We're not talking about bad apple syndrome. We're talking about a good majority, or all, of police participating in unjustly shooting a dog or not being critical of those who shoot dogs unjustly. It's departments setting up roadblocks with plenty of officer participation. It's departments knocking in doors for a bag of weed on a coffee table.

It's having to drive through my small town like I have a trunk full of heroin because the fuckers are everywhere and they are not needed. They have little else to do besides harass the working man.

WM_in_MO
10-24-2013, 08:16 PM
If the majority were any good, we wouldn't hear so often about the actions of the minority.

kcchiefs6465
10-24-2013, 08:19 PM
What evidence do you have that the bad cops are a "majority?"
That they stomp the cortex out of a man's skull and not a one can be found to offer much less than the defense of the incident.

What evidence do you have that the good cops are the majority?

25,000 ticketed happy motorists? A shot that could have gone either way?

Brett85
10-24-2013, 08:24 PM
What evidence do you have that the good cops are the majority?

I don't. You could never measure something like that. But I was just responding to someone who made a statement as if it were a fact, when it was simply his opinion.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
10-24-2013, 08:29 PM
What evidence do you have that the bad cops are a "majority?"

I don't see many, or any, Edward Snowden-type officers coming out and denouncing a dog shooting. I don't see any officers saying, "No, I am not busting into that guy's house because he has a bag of weed." The behavior is bad by virtue of what they do or don't do.

You are either part of the problem or part of the solution.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 08:33 PM
I don't see many, or any, Edward Snowden-type officers coming out and denouncing a dog shooting. I don't see any officers saying, "No, I am not busting into that guy's house because he has a bag of weed." The behavior is bad by virtue of what they do or don't do.

Of course, because they would be fired if they did that. They have to feed their families as well.

silverhandorder
10-24-2013, 08:37 PM
That didn't happen. With a few exceptions, standing armies were not popular. The constitution provides for a navy and militia, not a standing national army. I encourage you to look into the history of "police" in the US. It was a sort of civic duty rather than a profession in the 18th century.



Police are not "security". The courts at all levels have upheld this.[/COLOR]
Semantics.

Icymudpuppy
10-24-2013, 08:46 PM
Did anybody else notice that the video mentioned that the suspect, Wallace was raving about Illuminati, and that "George Bush Was Watching" him? This sounds oddly alike to the situation with the woman in D.C.

Is there really some MK Ultra going down? Are they activating test cases to see what happens? This is like straight out of that movie with Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts... "Conspiracy Theory".

Christian Liberty
10-24-2013, 08:51 PM
I just thought I'd provide some balance to the daily anti cop threads. :) Of course I don't deny that cops sometimes do bad things as well. But there needs to be balance and perspective.

You know, I'm still uncomfortable with the "hero" terminology. I'll never make the agents of the state into "heroes (I recognize that the article, not you, used that term>)

Nonetheless, he did exactly what needed to be done there, it seems like. Props.

Christian Liberty
10-24-2013, 08:54 PM
Of course, because they would be fired if they did that. They have to feed their families as well.

Yeah, but do you understand why this is WRONG?

And, while this cop may have saved a 2 year old today, he'll probably have to go after someone innocent at some point. And he's responsible for his actions, legal or illegal, just like any other human being.

"I have to feed my family" is not an excuse for breaking into people's homes and locking them up for the non-crime of smoking weed.

I'm not really surprised, and as I've said to my parents in real life, I expect nothing of the world. But Christians should be telling cops who do evil things to repent. And if a police officer does a good thing, we still shouldn't hero worship them.

kcchiefs6465
10-24-2013, 09:00 PM
I don't. You could never measure something like that. But I was just responding to someone who made a statement as if it were a fact, when it was simply his opinion.
Unless you measured "good" through the means of their salary. Taking money from everyone to pay for a service only some may use is inherently immoral.

If morality = good, there are no good cops. (simply by that which they are paid)

Now if by good you mean they have a good moral fiber; that when they see corruption they speak out about it, that is different. A person's profession has no bearing on their character. (though wholly my experience has been the worst of the scum migrate to positions of authority) The thing is though, I don't ever see one speaking out against the corruption. (aside from those persecuted into leaving the force) It leads to a perpetuating negative stereotype that one would imagine "good" cops would be offended by. But instead of addressing the root of the stereotypes, they issue half-assed statements of departmental policy and officer safety. Do you see? This incident proves nothing. It is a good outcome, from what I've read, but if you think this vindicates a single one who's accepting payment through inflationary means or the outright taking of money from all, you are mistaken.

And for another point, good doesn't mean they save kitty cats from the trees and put boots on the homeless. Nor does bad mean they beat and kill people. There is an area of gray where these people interact. Trying to sum up one's personality into a bubble of good vs. evil is a fool's errand. The cop who shoots and kills a person unjustly could be the same cop who saved some people from a house fire. Does the actions of the latter excuse the former?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
10-24-2013, 09:03 PM
Of course, because they would be fired if they did that. They have to feed their families as well.


Exactly. It takes a weakling to think he must shoot a galloping dog to feed his family. It is pitiful when it takes termination for somebody determine right vs. wrong.

Christian Liberty
10-24-2013, 09:06 PM
Actually, they're not rare. Most of them do their job when called upon.

If you look at the daily activities of cops, most of them are doing a job that others wouldn't want. Highlighting cop abuse does little to show that cops in general are terrible, despicable human beings.

We need to take a reasonable position that focuses on the offending cops, rather than collectivizing all cops into some dark, evil force which they're not.

I agree that most cops would do something like this "if called upon." They'd also kidnap someone for weed "if called upon." I don't think most cops are deliberately malicious, but ultimately they do commit horrible crimes while in State uniforms. There may be exceptions, I'm not sure. If a cop deliberately turned a blind eye to victimless "crimes" even some of the time I'd have to give credit for that as well. But ultimately, if you arrest someone for a non-crime, you're a kidnapper. Handing someone a ticket for a non-crime is essentially being an accomplice to theft. And if a police officer tries to arrest someone for a non-crime, the non-criminal tries to defend himself, and the cop kills him: The cop is a murderer. Kind of like how American soldiers who killed Iraqis that were defending their country were murderers.

So with all that said... No, they aren't all malicious. But they are no doubt mostly just as brainwashed as everyone else. I wouldn't be mean to cops individually, heck, as I've said, there's a man in my church who's faith I respect greatly who happens to be a police captain. But instititionally, doing evil seems to be part of the program. Mind you, that's not all that police do, but it seems like all police, or at least most, do some evil.


That^^ In the olden days, compliance to evil or illegal orders/policies was as wrong as choosing to do said act purposefully. This was famously recognized as the "Nuremberg Defense" during the Nurmeberg trials.

thumbs up.


What evidence do you have that the bad cops are a "majority?"

Ultimately, it depends on what you define as "bad." If by "bad" you mean the kind of people who would deliberately lie to special needs students to try to entrap them into a drug conviction, or will deliberately beat people up, or shoot people's dogs, or other things that they clearly don't have to do just because they're on a power trip, I'd tend to agree that that's a minority. But even still, the system is set up to protect that minority. And I don't think its some miniscule, statistically irrelevant minority either. I tend to think its a sizable minority.

That said, if we define "bad" by the NAP than most cops are "bad" at least some of the time. They might be "good" some of the time as well. But keep this in mind, imagine a civilian named Mr. Jones saves ten lives. However, let's say he also murders one person. Would we give him credit for the ten people he saved? Sure, but it doesn't matter, he'd still rightfully be charged with murder for the one.

With that in mind, can you kind of see why I have a low view of "The police" in general despite the fact that I admit some of them do do good some of the time?





Not really. If you compared my views and what I've said to what the average American believes, I would probably come across as being "anti cop" and "weak on crime" when compared to the average person. It's only compared to people here on these forums that I'm "tough on crime" and "engage in hero worship of the police."
.

To be clear, I didn't accuse you of worshipping the police. I just pointed out the "hero" thing because your article used the term.

I also agree with you that you're a lot better on these issues than the average American. That shouldn't be your standard though. Look, if you were going to run for office, I get how you'd have to venerate the "public servants" to some extent. I wouldn't do it, but then, if I ever ran for office I'd probably look more like Kevin Craig [and with a similar level of success, non-political at best:p] than Rand Paul. But I can tolerate a certain amount of pandering to the people from politicians. On the other hand, I see no reason we should care what the average person thinks when we're discussing here.

Christian Liberty
10-24-2013, 09:08 PM
And for another point, good doesn't mean they save kitty cats from the trees and put boots on the homeless. Nor does bad mean they beat and kill people. There is an area of gray where these people interact. Trying to sum up one's personality into a bubble of good vs. evil is a fool's errand. The cop who shoots and kills a person unjustly could be the same cop who saved some people from a house fire. Does the actions of the latter excuse the former?

I don't even think its grey. Mind you, if you want to talk about motivations, that might be gray. But if we're looking at it legalistically, a cop who did both of the things you describe would nonetheless be GUILTY. Not "morally neutral" but GUILTY.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
10-24-2013, 09:08 PM
I don't. You could never measure something like that. But I was just responding to someone who made a statement as if it were a fact, when it was simply his opinion.

Sure you can measure it. Take a survey.

Question 1: Do you think it was right or wrong to shoot this dog?

Question 2: Do you think roadblocks are justified or not justified?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
10-24-2013, 09:14 PM
"I have to feed my family" is not an excuse for breaking into people's homes and locking them up for the non-crime of smoking weed.



I can't even believe somebody uses this excuse. The replication of Stanley's Milgram's experiment over-and-over again shows that Milgram's conclusion lives on with societal weaklings.

kcchiefs6465
10-24-2013, 09:20 PM
I don't even think its grey. Mind you, if you want to talk about motivations, that might be gray. But if we're looking at it legalistically, a cop who did both of the things you describe would nonetheless be GUILTY. Not "morally neutral" but GUILTY.
Their actions alone could be described as moral or immoral; their underlying motivations and character are gray.

Anti Federalist
10-24-2013, 09:22 PM
Founding Fathers were more like Traditional Conservative then someone who would abolish all police forces. You can't honestly think that people who voted for a document that establishes national army would not have accepted the idea of police.

The FFs engaged in armed rebellion against a standing force of "police" in Boston, that were doing exactly what cops do today.

237 years later, they cheered them.

That's what has changed.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 09:25 PM
Sure you can measure it. Take a survey.

Question 1: Do you think it was right or wrong to shoot this dog?

Question 2: Do you think roadblocks are justified or not justified?

Why would anyone be opposed to roadblocks to catch a fugitive or criminal? My parents had a situation where they were being harassed on the highway; a man who was high on drugs was trying to run them off the road and get them to stop. The police came and chased the suspect for a long time, using roadblocks and rumble strips to catch the suspect and take him to prison. I'm glad they did that and protected the lives and liberties of my parents and everyone else out on the road who would've had to deal with this freak had he not been caught.

Christian Liberty
10-24-2013, 09:34 PM
I can't even believe somebody uses this excuse. The replication of Stanley's Milgram's experiment over-and-over again shows that Milgram's conclusion lives on with societal weaklings.

I think TCs problem (in his defense, he's probably still ahead of 95% of America) is that he's not yet willing to say that enforcing a bad law is inherently immoral. I don't think TC would take this to its logical conclusion. I'm pretty sure he'd never defend, say, the Nazis, with this kind of reasoning. But the bottom line is, I still view it as problamatic.

Their actions alone could be described as moral or immoral; their underlying motivations and character are gray.

I might agree with this in a sense. Ultimately I sort of have a theological issue with this, but I think I know what you're getting at. Not every "bad cop" is a psychopath who just wants to make people suffer, they may mean well, but ultimately they are still wrong if they aggress against the innocent. If that's what you meant, I agree.


Why would anyone be opposed to roadblocks to catch a fugitive or criminal? My parents had a situation where they were being harassed on the highway; a man who was high on drugs was trying to run them off the road and get them to stop. The police came and chased the suspect for a long time, using roadblocks and rumble strips to catch the suspect and take him to prison. I'm glad they did that and protected the lives and liberties of my parents and everyone else out on the road who would've had to deal with this freak had he not been caught.

I don't think they mean roadblocks for the sake of catching a particular person who is an immediate danger to the people around him. I think they're talking about things like where they set up a roadblock just in case there were any drunk drivers so they could randomly check people, or things like that.

But yes, I agree that roadblocks are not wrong in every case without exception. It depends on the reason: It needs to be either because of an immediate threat of some kind.

asurfaholic
10-24-2013, 09:37 PM
I just thought I'd provide some balance to the daily anti cop threads. :) Of course I don't deny that cops sometimes do bad things as well. But there needs to be balance and perspective.

But there ISN'T balance.

Cops routinely bust down doors and gun down anyone who stands against them.

And then this cop did what ANYONE would do in this situation. Yea, give him a cookie, but there is no balance to spoke of..

Brett85
10-24-2013, 09:40 PM
I don't think they mean roadblocks for the sake of catching a particular person who is an immediate danger to the people around him. I think they're talking about things like where they set up a roadblock just in case there were any drunk drivers so they could randomly check people, or things like that.

But yes, I agree that roadblocks are not wrong in every case without exception. It depends on the reason: It needs to be either because of an immediate threat of some kind.

Yeah, maybe that was what he was referring to. But I thought that was referred to as "checkpoints."

Brett85
10-24-2013, 09:41 PM
But there ISN'T balance.

Cops routinely bust down doors and gun down anyone who stands against them.

Well, not where I live. I know the cops where I live and get along with them. Although it does seem as though the cops in small towns and more rural areas are generally better than the cops in big cities.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
10-24-2013, 09:43 PM
Why would anyone be opposed to roadblocks to catch a fugitive or criminal? My parents had a situation where they were being harassed on the highway; a man who was high on drugs was trying to run them off the road and get them to stop. The police came and chased the suspect for a long time, using roadblocks and rumble strips to catch the suspect and take him to prison. I'm glad they did that and protected the lives and liberties of my parents and everyone else out on the road who would've had to deal with this freak had he not been caught.

I'm speaking of DWI and seatbelt roadblocks.

Henry Rogue
10-24-2013, 09:44 PM
Capt. David Huff, shot the man at point-blank range. The child was unharmed in the horrifying ordeal. Because at any greater range he would have missed him and hit the kid. You know it and the cop knew it too.

Christian Liberty
10-24-2013, 09:46 PM
Yeah, maybe that was what he was referring to. But I thought that was referred to as "checkpoints."

You may be right, but I'm not sure. And even if you are right he may have used the wrong word. Or maybe he does think roadblocks are always wrong. I don't know.



Well, not where I live. I know the cops where I live and get along with them. Although it does seem as though the cops in small towns and more rural areas are generally better than the cops in big cities.

I suspect this is likely the case. The entire NYPD disgusts me with the whole "Stop and Frisk" thing. Much like the entire TSA disgusts me because of the perversion involved in the job (I don't think most of them are actual perverts, but I really don't care either, what they do is actively hostile to a free society, and are things that would be presumed to be done by a pervert if done by civilians to other civilians).

Let me put it this way, if someone says "I'm a cop" I'll suspect, but not immediately judge, that he is doing something immoral.

But if he arrests someone for doing drugs, I will call him a kidnapper. If he writes someone a ticket who was clearly not endangering anyone else, I'll call him a thief. If he shoots someone for defending themselves or fleeing against a police officer's aggression, I'll call him a murderer.

As I'm thinking through this, Deuteronomy 17:14-20 is coming to mind. If God-annointed Kings even had to follow God's Law, surely cops do too?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
10-24-2013, 09:47 PM
I'm pretty sure he'd never defend, say, the Nazis, with this kind of reasoning.

Hindsight is 20-20, so not too many people defend Nazis anymore. That's the easy part.

The hard part is determining Nazi morality, or any morality, at the time it actually occurs.

Christian Liberty
10-24-2013, 09:47 PM
I'm speaking of DWI and seatbelt roadblocks.

Oh, brother, another debate on DWI:p

Brett85
10-24-2013, 09:48 PM
I'm speaking of DWI and seatbelt roadblocks.

Ok. I'm opposed to that as well.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 09:49 PM
Oh, brother, another debate on DWI:p

I support DUI, DWI laws, but don't support using checkpoints to enforce them.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 09:52 PM
If he writes someone a ticket who was clearly not endangering anyone else, I'll call him a thief.

If someone drives 120 MPH along a highway, or 120 MPH through a major U.S city, would you say that that person is endangering other people, or not?

Anti Federalist
10-24-2013, 09:55 PM
I support DUI, DWI laws, but don't support using checkpoints to enforce them.

Accepting the former means inevitably accepting the latter.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 10:02 PM
Accepting the former means inevitably accepting the latter.

If the 4th amendment were simply enforced, you could have DUI laws without checkpoints.

aGameOfThrones
10-24-2013, 10:04 PM
If someone drives 120 MPH along a highway, or 120 MPH through a major U.S city, would you say that that person is endangering other people, or not?

Is it a cop or a mundane?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
10-24-2013, 10:07 PM
Yeah, maybe that was what he was referring to. But I thought that was referred to as "checkpoints."

"Checkpoint" is just part of the doublespeak. Just like a gun "permit." Let's call a spade a spade.

Henry Rogue
10-24-2013, 10:08 PM
Not really. If you compared my views and what I've said to what the average American believes, I would probably come across as being "anti cop" and "weak on crime" when compared to the average person. It's only compared to people here on these forums that I'm "tough on crime" and "engage in hero worship of the police."
. I just think you are someone who is okay with two different sets of law. One set for them and a different set for us.

Christian Liberty
10-24-2013, 10:09 PM
If someone drives 120 MPH along a highway, or 120 MPH through a major U.S city, would you say that that person is endangering other people, or not?

You know, I don't really like this sort of question because its kind of a continuum game. But in any case, I'll answer it.

In a major city? Almost certainly yes. I can't imagine a case where it wouldn't be.

On a highway in a rural area? I think there are cases where it might not be.

Extreme speeds like this kind of make it tricky, but I guess what I'd say is, are you pulling them over because they actually are (As in, currently) an immediate threat to the people around them? Or are you pulling them over because they might, at some point in the future, be a threat to someone? Its especially absurd when people get pulled over for driving with the flow of traffic, its completely obviously not a danger to anyone, but hey, they have to fill their quotas... that's immoral.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
10-24-2013, 10:10 PM
Roadblocks, checkpoints, or whatever you call them, don't catch anybody. It's the simple mathematical concept of randomness, a concept that does not work if you want to get something done. You don't wait for a criminal to approach you and hope they run into your net.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 10:15 PM
You know, I don't really like this sort of question because its kind of a continuum game. But in any case, I'll answer it.

In a major city? Almost certainly yes. I can't imagine a case where it wouldn't be.

On a highway in a rural area? I think there are cases where it might not be.

Extreme speeds like this kind of make it tricky, but I guess what I'd say is, are you pulling them over because they actually are (As in, currently) an immediate threat to the people around them? Or are you pulling them over because they might, at some point in the future, be a threat to someone? Its especially absurd when people get pulled over for driving with the flow of traffic, its completely obviously not a danger to anyone, but hey, they have to fill their quotas... that's immoral.

What if someone can drive through a major city at 120 MPH without hurting anyone? Why should that person be stopped and get a ticket? :) My point is simply that there can be some disagreement on what "aggression" actually is and whether someone is actually endangering someone else or not. I think all of us probably agree that someone who uses drugs in their own home isn't hurting anyone else. But when people are driving out on the road with numerous other cars on the road, people inevitably affect other people by the way they drive.

kcchiefs6465
10-24-2013, 10:16 PM
I might agree with this in a sense. Ultimately I sort of have a theological issue with this, but I think I know what you're getting at. Not every "bad cop" is a psychopath who just wants to make people suffer, they may mean well, but ultimately they are still wrong if they aggress against the innocent. If that's what you meant, I agree.

Yes, that is what I was getting at. I more refer to the matter generally in that everyone feels the same about their situation. Many people who profit from this system don't see a problem with it. They may not be evil, or negatively driven, but much of programs revolve around that fact; That they can point to those who were successful or an image of what they are supposed to stand for and say, "This is why we need more," (money).

Everyone does profit. (directly or indirectly) The immorality of the deeds override the short-term gains we receive.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 10:16 PM
Roadblocks, checkpoints, or whatever you call them, don't catch anybody. It's the simple mathematical concept of randomness, a concept that does not work if you want to get something done. You don't wait for a criminal to approach you and hope they run into your net.

They catch people when they're chasing after a criminal who's causing an imminent threat to other people, but then again you said you weren't talking about that.

kcchiefs6465
10-24-2013, 10:23 PM
They catch people when they're chasing after a criminal who's causing an imminent threat to other people, but then again you said you weren't talking about that.
Because identifying the [required] tags and investigating who was driving the vehicle (you know, not endangering the public through high speed chases) and following up on the matter is something left only to silent films and fairy tales.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
10-24-2013, 10:27 PM
The conversation has degenerated into ridiculous arguments. Has anybody here actually driven 120mph, let alone that speed in the city limits? I've never known of anybody who has gone 120 down the street, except bull shitters and Kyle Bush.

I see over 90% of cars tailgating. That behavior probably causes 15% of accidents. Never heard of law-and-order nutjobs advocating tickets for that. Instead, the imbecile law-and-order types support "checkpoints" that have been proven ineffective at every turn. The cowardly police engage in a softball job of engaging old people and housewives at your "checkpoints."

Brett85
10-24-2013, 10:29 PM
Because identifying the [required] tags and investigating who was driving the vehicle (you know, not endangering the public through high speed chases) and following up on the matter is something left only to silent films and fairy tales.

My parents got the guy's license plate and reported it to the sheriff/police, and so they had his identification by the time they got there. He resisted arrest, led the police on a chase, eventually got stopped due to the roadblocks, and proceeded to assault two police officers.

kcchiefs6465
10-24-2013, 10:31 PM
My parents got the guy's license plate and reported it to the sheriff/police, and so they had his identification by the time they got there. He resisted arrest, led the police on a chase, eventually got stopped due to the roadblocks, and proceeded to assault two police officers.
God bless America.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 10:32 PM
God bless America.

Yep, you should step into the real world.

kcchiefs6465
10-24-2013, 10:35 PM
Yep, you should step into the real world.
The world of leeches, snitches, whores, and ticks. Sounds nice.

Not to mention pussies.

Christian Liberty
10-24-2013, 10:36 PM
What if someone can drive through a major city at 120 MPH without hurting anyone? Why should that person be stopped and get a ticket? :)

I honestly don't think this is true. I think there's a gray area somewhere, but I seriously doubt this would ever come up at 120 in NYC. You would certainly hit someone very, very quickly.

Here's the thing though. That's the kind of a case where you'd actually want to get the person off the road for the safety of everyone else. If you are going to stop them, ticket them, and let them drive off, its obviously a revenue issue rather than a real safety issue.



My point is simply that there can be some disagreement on what "aggression" actually is and whether someone is actually endangering someone else or not. I think all of us probably agree that someone who uses drugs in their own home isn't hurting anyone else. But when people are driving out on the road with numerous other cars on the road, people inevitably affect other people by the way they drive.

There are some cases where there's legitimate disagreement as to what constitutes aggression. Abortion (Although I very strongly agree with the pro-life position), intellectual property, immigration, etc. But in this case, its really just an issue where public property creates a problem, which would not exist if the roads were owned by free market competitors.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 10:37 PM
The world of leeches, snitches, whores, and ticks. Sounds nice.

Not to mention pussies.

That sounds better than a world where my parents would be dead, because of a sick ideology that says that it's every man for himself, that people have the right to hurt other people.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 10:40 PM
But anyway, this is getting way off topic. Someone please bring this back to the original article/video.

Christian Liberty
10-24-2013, 10:42 PM
That sounds better than a world where my parents would be dead, because of a sick ideology that says that it's every man for himself, that people have the right to hurt other people.

I'd be careful with arguments like this. I was attacked for "Putting ideology over people" on another forum when I called the police who arrested a woman who was a victim of sexual violence "For her own protection" kidnappers. They completely twisted my position into a knot to say I was somehow a woman-hating misogynist ideologue because I wouldn't condone arresting a woman for her own "protection."}

I was attacked by my uncle when I institutionally condemned police because they all have to enforce victimless crimes. He basically made it out like I was happy that his friend who was a cop and his friend who was killed by a drunk driver died because I don't respect the institution of the police.

Reminds me of the liberals who act like people who support guns are ideologues who care more about their rights than the lives of children (Which is absurd as well.)

Be careful along these lines. The minute you cast aside logic for emotion, you lose, no matter how valid your point in a vacuum.

heavenlyboy34
10-24-2013, 10:43 PM
Semantics.
Incorrect. They are totally different things. Apples and oranges.

kcchiefs6465
10-24-2013, 10:43 PM
That sounds better than a world where my parents would be dead, because of a sick ideology that says that it's every man for himself, that people have the right to hurt other people.
Right.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 10:44 PM
I'd be careful with arguments like this. I was attacked for "Putting ideology over people" on another forum when I called the police who arrested a woman who was a victim of sexual violence "For her own protection" kidnappers. They completely twisted my position into a knot to say I was somehow a woman-hating misogynist ideologue because I wouldn't condone arresting a woman for her own "protection."}

I was attacked by my uncle when I institutionally condemned police because they all have to enforce victimless crimes. He basically made it out like I was happy that his friend who was a cop and his friend who was killed by a drunk driver died because I don't respect the institution of the police.

Reminds me of the liberals who act like people who support guns are ideologues who care more about their rights than the lives of children (Which is absurd as well.)

Be careful along these lines. The minute you cast aside logic for emotion, you lose, no matter how valid your point in a vacuum.

I don't care. If this guy doesn't realize how absurd it is to say that the police should never engage in a high speed pursuit to catch someone who's posing an imminent threat to the lives of others, then he has problems and has absolutely no grasp of reality.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
10-24-2013, 10:48 PM
That sounds better than a world where my parents would be dead, because of a sick ideology that says that it's every man for himself, that people have the right to hurt other people.

Hey, I don't blame your parents. You do what you have to do with the tools at hand.

The sick ideology however, is one that is the exact opposite of every-man-for-himself. You can't even do anything close to defending yourself in today's world. Your dad (or hell, your mom) should have shot that fucker. A bullied kid fights back and he's suspended. We live in a pansy world where you call an adult if somebody looks at you cross-eyed.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 10:50 PM
Hey, I don't blame your parents. You do what you have to do with the tools at hand.

The sick ideology however, is one that is the exact opposite of every-man-for-himself. You can't even do anything close to defending yourself in today's world. Your dad (or hell, your mom) should have shot that fucker. A bullied kid fights back and he's suspended. We live in a pansy world where you call an adult if somebody looks at you cross-eyed.

He didn't have a gun with him. But the Sheriff said that if he had had a gun, it would've been fine and completely legal for my dad to shoot him. It would've been legal for him to run over him as well. The guy actually got out of his vehicle and approached my parents. I advocate self defense as well and teaching people to protect themselves. I argue with my sister all the time that people can't simply rely on the police for safety, that they have to defend themselves as well. But the police still have a role to play in helping people in these situations.

heavenlyboy34
10-24-2013, 10:57 PM
That sounds better than a world where my parents would be dead, because of a sick ideology that says that it's every man for himself, that people have the right to hurt other people.
Causality logic fail.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/posthocf.html

I'm finding flawed logic (sometimes horribly so) in almost each of your posts in this thread. You should step away from the thread until you can cool down and think/reason clearly. Thnx.

FloralScent
10-24-2013, 10:57 PM
I don't care. If this guy doesn't realize how absurd it is to say that the police should never engage in a high speed pursuit to catch someone who's posing an imminent threat to the lives of others, then he has problems and has absolutely no grasp of reality.

I think the family of 6 killed by a speeding cop in Upper Arlington last week blunts the shit out of your argument.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 11:00 PM
Causality logic fail.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/posthocf.html

I'm not going to apologize for my comment. He didn't even present a real argument, just posted meaningless sarcastic comments like "God Bless America."

Brett85
10-24-2013, 11:02 PM
I think the family of 6 killed by a speeding cop in Upper Arlington last week blunts the shit out of your argument.

But it's ok if someone breaks into a home and murders a family of 6. The police shouldn't do anything about that.

kcchiefs6465
10-24-2013, 11:03 PM
I don't care. If this guy doesn't realize how absurd it is to say that the police should never engage in a high speed pursuit to catch someone who's posing an imminent threat to the lives of others, then he has problems and has absolutely no grasp of reality.
The imminent threat level increases when said police officers get behind them.

But the hundreds upon hundreds of innocent civilians killed through the police escalation of a (non-crime) traffic offense turned police chase means nothing. So the entire road way and city is put at risk because mommy has a MADD urge. I feel insensitive.

heavenlyboy34
10-24-2013, 11:07 PM
I'm not going to apologize for my comment. He didn't even present a real argument, just posted meaningless sarcastic comments like "God Bless America."
2 wrongs don't make a right, my friend.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 11:07 PM
The imminent threat level increases when said police officers get behind them.

But the hundreds upon hundreds of innocent civilians killed through the police escalation of a (non-crime) traffic offense turned police chase means nothing. So the entire road way and city is put at risk because mommy has a MADD urge. I feel insensitive.

You apparently don't understand the situation I'm talking about then. This wasn't a "non crime" traffic offense, and he wasn't driving in a major city where there would be a lot of people. He was driving on a county road late at night, that virtually no one else was driving on. The only other people driving were newspaper editors who wanted to take pictures of what was happening.

aGameOfThrones
10-24-2013, 11:08 PM
But it's ok if someone breaks into a home and murders a family of 6. The police shouldn't do anything about that.

http://media.tumblr.com/5427613b65fb0ea1f89f8d8b8fb1e1bb/tumblr_inline_mfbgooYZYE1rsmzsq.gif

FloralScent
10-24-2013, 11:09 PM
But it's ok if someone breaks into a home and murders a family of 6. The police shouldn't do anything about that.

Your post has nothing to do with mine. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 11:10 PM
Your post has nothing to do with mine. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

You implied in your original post that the police shouldn't go after bad guys. I don't see why you would be confused that your position leads to the murder of innocent people and people losing their right to life, liberty, and property.

FloralScent
10-24-2013, 11:12 PM
You said in your original post that the police shouldn't go after bad guys.

That's not what I said. Now you're lying to obscure the fact that you're wrong.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 11:18 PM
That's not what I said. Now you're lying to obscure the fact that you're wrong.

You criticized the police for accidentally killing people during a high speed chase. If you're saying that the police should never engage in a high speed chase because they might accidentally kill someone, then you're going to have a lot of murderers on the loose who will cause harm to other people. That's my point.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
10-24-2013, 11:23 PM
He didn't have a gun with him. But the Sheriff said that if he had had a gun, it would've been fine and completely legal for my dad to shoot him. It would've been legal for him to run over him as well. The guy actually got out of his vehicle and approached my parents. I advocate self defense as well and teaching people to protect themselves. I argue with my sister all the time that people can't simply rely on the police for safety, that they have to defend themselves as well. But the police still have a role to play in helping people in these situations.


I wonder how many people would hesitate nowadays in a situation like that because they got a school suspension (as a kid) for fighting back a bully. It's an entire mentality.

A gun in the car might not even be enough because maybe you have to lock it in your glovebox and the damn key is on your key ring in the ignition. I lived in a state where the police lobbied for and advocated this nonsense. Maybe a person lives in New York and can't even carry a firearm. Many police are a huge part of this idea that only they are qualified for such situations.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 11:26 PM
I wonder how many people would hesitate nowadays in a situation like that because they got a school suspension (as a kid) for fighting back a bully. It's an entire mentality.

A gun in the car might not even be enough because maybe you have to lock it in your glovebox and the damn key is on your key ring in the ignition. I lived in a state where the police lobbied for and advocated this nonsense. Maybe a person lives in New York and can't even carry a firearm. Many police are a huge part of this idea that only they are qualified for such situations.

I agree with you that we should make our laws to where people would clearly have the right to defend themselves in every situation. People should always have the right to use force in self defense. I just disagree with those who say that the police should have no role in this type of situation, that they shouldn't pursue a nut who poses a threat to the community.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 11:28 PM
Not that this has anything to do with the link that I posted. This kind of got off topic, which is partly my fault. I shouldn't have told that story.

Christian Liberty
10-24-2013, 11:30 PM
I agree with you that we should make our laws to where people would clearly have the right to defend themselves in every situation. People should always have the right to use force in self defense. I just disagree with those who say that the police should have no role in this type of situation, that they shouldn't pursue a nut who poses a threat to the community.

I think that having self-defense would at least reduce the need for police. I think the market could provide any policing that is still necessary.

Christian Liberty
10-24-2013, 11:31 PM
Not that this has anything to do with the link that I posted. This kind of got off topic, which is partly my fault. I shouldn't have told that story.

There's really nothing to discuss that's directly related to the OP. He did the right thing, and everyone here gives him credit for that.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 11:33 PM
I think that having self-defense would at least reduce the need for police. I think the market could provide any policing that is still necessary.

Wouldn't you still have high speech chases and the like with private police? It doesn't seem like those who oppose high speed chases by the police would really like having private police either.

aGameOfThrones
10-24-2013, 11:33 PM
You criticized the police for accidentally killing people during a high speed chase. If you're saying that the police should never engage in a high speed chase because they might accidentally kill someone, then you're going to have a lot of murderers on the loose who will cause harm to other people. That's my point.


I think I understand what you're saying. You're saying that police who "accidentally" kill people by recklessly engaging in a high speed chase are murderers who get away with it.

Christian Liberty
10-24-2013, 11:34 PM
Wouldn't you still have high speech chases and the like with private police? It doesn't seem like those who oppose high speed chases by the police would really like having private police either.

Probably. But then again, I wasn't arguing that high speed chases were necessarily a bad thing. I think there are cases where that could be justified.

kcchiefs6465
10-24-2013, 11:35 PM
I'm not going to apologize for my comment. He didn't even present a real argument, just posted meaningless sarcastic comments like "God Bless America."
You could not begin to debate any position. Why do I respond to your nonsense as I do? Perhaps because you try the same tired horseshit time and time again.

That is, incredible misrepresentations, amazing exaggerations, straw men, pleas to emotion, and all around nonsense.

I've debunked any position you've had since I've been coming here. You don't try to learn, you attempt subtle ways of subjecting truth.

I mean literally, it is getting old. You are most probably cointel (COIN) meant to disrupt actual discussion. You act as if you are goddamn retarded.

I'm not the only person here seeing this.

You know damn well my last 10 responses to your nonsense received no reply. (as you couldn't) It's because you are too busy pimping your half and half, regrettable, horseshit.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 11:35 PM
I think I understand what you're saying. You're saying that police who "accidentally" kill people by recklessly engaging in a high speed chase are murderers who get away with it.

So you think that it's "murder" to accidentally kill someone? A police officer who accidentally kills someone while pursuing a criminal is exactly the same as a criminal who breaks into someone's home and intentionally murders him and his entire family?

Brett85
10-24-2013, 11:37 PM
You could not begin to debate any position. Why do I respond to your nonsense as I do? Perhaps because you try the same tired horseshit time and time again.

That is, incredible misrepresentations, amazing exaggerations, straw men, pleas to emotion, and all around nonsense.

I've debunked any position you've had since I've been coming here. You don't try to learn, you attempt subtle ways of subjecting truth.

I mean literally, it is getting old. You are most probably cointel (COIN) meant to disrupt actual discussion. You act as if you are goddamn retarded.

I'm not the only person here seeing this.

You know damn well my last 10 responses to your nonsense received no reply. (as you couldn't) It's because you are too busy pimping your half and half, regrettable, horseshit.

I don't see why I should even bother responding to any of your posts, when you make ridiculous assertions, like the police shouldn't pursue someone who's committed an act of aggression against someone else. Like I said, step into the real world and get a clue.

Christian Liberty
10-24-2013, 11:37 PM
So you think that it's "murder" to accidentally kill someone? A police officer who accidentally kills someone while pursuing a criminal is exactly the same as a criminal who breaks into someone's home and intentionally murders him and his entire family?

My stance would be, if an innocent person is killed in a genuine accident, as in, the cop took the action he took without knowing that an innocent person would be killed, that's manslaughter. It should be punishable, but not the same degree as murder.

On the other hand, if a police officer, or anyone else, were to take an action KNOWING it would kill innocents, that would be murder.

Christian Liberty
10-24-2013, 11:39 PM
I think this thread is filled with strawmen by virtually everyone. In fact, its so full of strawmen that I tend to think I've made one even though I don't know it.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 11:41 PM
I think this thread is filled with strawmen by virtually everyone. In fact, its so full of strawmen that I tend to think I've made one even though I don't know it.

No, just me. I'm to blame for everything. :)

Brett85
10-24-2013, 11:44 PM
I told myself that I was just going to stay away from discussing this issue. Hopefully I'll listen to myself next time. This thread and threads like it are just pointless. I wish a mod would just delete it or at least move it.

Christian Liberty
10-24-2013, 11:45 PM
No, just me. I'm to blame for everything. :)

I'm not going to bother listing them all, but I don't think it was just you:)

aGameOfThrones
10-24-2013, 11:45 PM
So you think that it's "murder" to accidentally kill someone? A police officer who accidentally kills someone while pursuing a criminal is exactly the same as a criminal who breaks into someone's home and intentionally murders him and his entire family?

I think what you're saying is that, when SWAT Unlawfully breaks into someone's home and intentionally murders a citizen, that's the same as when a cop recklessly engages in a high speed chase that murders a citizen.

Brett85
10-24-2013, 11:49 PM
I think what you're saying is that, when SWAT Unlawfully breaks into someone's home and intentionally murders a citizen, that's the same as when a cop recklessly engages in a high speed chase that murders a citizen.

I'm not defending illegal searches or anything of the sort. I've simply been arguing that there are times when the police have to pursue someone who is posing an imminent threat to other people. Really, it's hard for me to believe I even have to argue this. If you believe in any government at all, then you have to believe that the government at least exists to try to protect people's lives when they're being threatened by someone. And if you don't believe in any government, then it seems like you should be in favor of private police forces coming to the aid of people who's lives are being threatened.

DamianTV
10-25-2013, 06:46 AM
What evidence do you have that the bad cops are a "majority?"

I'd go with the entire lot of them being an Unaccountable Authority. Any action either good or bad allows the people no recourse in any way shape or form.

I dont hate cops, but I wouldnt trust a single one of them as far as I could throw them. I've had way too many personal experiences where they excessively overstepped their authority because it was entertaining to them to do so. Problem is that for any Honest Cops that do exist, they are quite frequently ousted by the corrupt ones. Other Honest Cops say nothing because they fear losing their jobs. When the last Honest Cop loses his job, there are no other Honest Cops left to stand by their sides.

Corruption is the Cancer of Law Enforcement, and it has Metastocized. Cruelty is the means by which it spreads. Unaccountable Authority prevents ANY form of treatment. And this disease will kill its victim, both literally and metaphorically.

aGameOfThrones
10-25-2013, 07:11 AM
I'm not defending illegal searches or anything of the sort. I've simply been arguing that there are times when the police have to pursue someone who is posing an imminent threat to other people. Really, it's hard for me to believe I even have to argue this. If you believe in any government at all, then you have to believe that the government at least exists to try to protect people's lives when they're being threatened by someone. And if you don't believe in any government, then it seems like you should be in favor of private police forces coming to the aid of people who's lives are being threatened.


I think what you're saying is that, to stop a threat cops need to become a threat.

TruckinMike
10-25-2013, 08:45 AM
Yeah, I was just thinking about what I would've done had I been there and had a gun. I don't think I would've taken a shot right away, because I wouldn't want to take the risk of killing the girl.

I would not have taken the shot for fear of going to jail. However, IF there were no police and I was apart of the local citizen militia(that commonly deals with situations like these) I would have shot as soon as possible. But more than likely the mother would have already done that being that she would not have been brain-washed into believing that it was someone else s responsibility to protect her child.

I know...I know... Unicorns, skittles, and lollipops.
.
.
.
.
EDIT: OOPS ----> I didn't realize there were five pages on this thread. If someone already made this point chalk it off to me getting a bit post happy...:)

Red Green
10-25-2013, 10:20 AM
I just thought I'd provide some balance to the daily anti cop true-story government policing threads. :) Of course I don't deny that cops sometimes often... nearly always... 99.999999% of the time do bad terrible... really nasty... fucking evil psychotic things as well. But there needs to be balance and a statist pig bootlicker perspective.

Fixed it for you.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 10:44 AM
I would not have taken the shot for fear of going to jail. However, IF there were no police and I was apart of the local citizen militia(that commonly deals with situations like these) I would have shot as soon as possible. But more than likely the mother would have already done that being that she would not have been brain-washed into believing that it was someone else s responsibility to protect her child.

I know...I know... Unicorns, skittles, and lollipops.

.
.
.
EDIT: OOPS ----> I didn't realize there were five pages on this thread. If someone already made this point chalk it off to me getting a bit post happy...:)

I'm not saying that people shouldn't defend themselves. I argue with people who say that they don't need to defend themselves, because the police will simply do it for them. The police don't always arrive in time, and sometimes it's necessary for people to defend themselves and defend others. I'm not claiming that people shouldn't defend themselves and should simply rely on the police, as others seem to be claiming. But, I still think the police have a role to play in these situations; they should help people defend themselves and should go after people who pose an imminent threat to others.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 10:55 AM
Anarchists proceed to bash this 'nazi-gestapo-goostepping-pig' in:

4.....
3.....
2.....
1.....

[Mod edit]

Just because we recognize the violations of our rights that occurring, that automatically makes us anarchists? It's as if you were using the fact that we don't like government as some reason to distrust us. Also, I don't think I've seen anyone bash the cops in a thread praising truly heroic actions.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 10:58 AM
Then what exactly is it if you constantly criticize the police and are in favor of abolishing the police?

How about telling the truth? Since when is reporting real stories 'cop-bashing'? It's not our fault that their actions make them look bad.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 11:07 AM
How about telling the truth? Since when is reporting real stories 'cop-bashing'? It's not our fault that their actions make them look bad.

Then why not make it more even and report stories where cops do good things? That's what I did in this thread.

jllundqu
10-25-2013, 11:15 AM
[Mod edit]

Just because we recognize the violations of our rights that occurring, that automatically makes us anarchists? It's as if you were using the fact that we don't like government as some reason to distrust us. Also, I don't think I've seen anyone bash the cops in a thread praising truly heroic actions.

-rep

Seriously? Grow up.... and follow some forum guidelines while you're at it.

phill4paul
10-25-2013, 11:19 AM
Then why not make it more even and report stories where cops do good things? That's what I did in this thread.

You can read those stories in the funny papers or watch them on the clown networks daily. The internet is for reporting alternative news stories. The one's that the state worshiping MSM don't cover.
And no one is stopping you for posting "cop done good, atta-boy" threads.

Red Green
10-25-2013, 02:59 PM
You can read those stories in the funny papers or watch them on the clown networks daily. The internet is for reporting alternative news stories. The one's that the state worshiping MSM don't cover.
And no one is stopping you for posting "cop done good, atta-boy" threads.

I have to say that it IS news when a cop does something good. I mean, that's man bites dog right there..... Cop shoots [dog/child/unarmed stranger/disabled vet/retarded kid/school librarian] or cop rapes [woman pulled over for drunk driving/prostitute/female inmate/neighbor's goat] is hardly news these days.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 04:42 PM
Founding Fathers were more like Traditional Conservative then someone who would abolish all police forces. You can't honestly think that people who voted for a document that establishes national army would not have accepted the idea of police.

People were very against the idea of a national army, as you call it, or standing army. Militias were all the rage.


Because there are criminals and unstable people and they would exist in any society to some degree and to that degree we need people employed as security.

Would they exist in the form they do now? Most certainly not. No private company could get away with the stuff they do. I doubt they would even be called police. They would be called security and you can hire them as much as you want as long as they don't go around harassing other people.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 04:46 PM
Then why not make it more even and report stories where cops do good things? That's what I did in this thread.

Good for you. You can do that if you want, but don't call us some derogatory term just because we choose to broadcast the fact that our rights are being violated in a major way. That's the whole point. If we also report the good stuff, then we're just a news source about cops in general. We're trying to make a point.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 04:49 PM
Good for you. You can do that if you want, but don't call us some derogatory term just because we choose to broadcast the fact that our rights are being violated in a major way. That's the whole point. If we also report the good stuff, then we're just a news source about cops in general. We're trying to make a point.

What "derogatory" term did I use? Someone else used the term "anarchist," not me. And even if I had used that term, I'm not exactly sure how it's "derogatory" when about 50% of the members here describe themselves as being anarchists.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 04:50 PM
Of course, because they would be fired if they did that. They have to feed their families as well.

That's the whole point, though. They knew the job they signed up for included that kind of stuff and they were completely okay with it because what they need apparently justifies all of that. They couldn't possibly feed their families any other way.

And besides, even the lowest level cop can do quite a bit more than feed their family, plus benefits, like near-immunity from the law.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 04:52 PM
And I'm trying to make a "point" with what I posted, which is that there are good cops and bad cops. There are cops who do good things and cops who do bad things, and you can't just make a blanket statement criticizing all cops whenever one cop abuses his authority and does something bad. Cops are no different than any other human beings. There are people who are good human beings who want to do what's right and try to help out their fellow man. There are people who are bad human beings who harm others and have little respect for their fellow human beings. Someone isn't all of a sudden either "good" or "bad" because they became a cop. Whether someone is a good or bad human being doesn't depend on their profession.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 04:54 PM
That's the whole point, though. They knew the job they signed up for included that kind of stuff and they were completely okay with it because what they need apparently justifies all of that. They couldn't possibly feed their families any other way.

And besides, even the lowest level cop can do quite a bit more than feed their family, plus benefits, like near-immunity from the law.

Not everyone believes that drug laws are wrong or unnecessary. I do believe that these laws are unnecessary, but many if not most people disagree with me, so many police officers aren't going to think that they're doing anything wrong if they arrest someone for some drug related crime.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 05:03 PM
Why would anyone be opposed to roadblocks to catch a fugitive or criminal? My parents had a situation where they were being harassed on the highway; a man who was high on drugs was trying to run them off the road and get them to stop. The police came and chased the suspect for a long time, using roadblocks and rumble strips to catch the suspect and take him to prison. I'm glad they did that and protected the lives and liberties of my parents and everyone else out on the road who would've had to deal with this freak had he not been caught.

I don't think we're talking about high-speed pursuit roadblocks. We're talking about mandatory checkpoints which are done to catch people who are committing crimes of possession that don't involve any other aggressive crimes.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 05:06 PM
I don't think we're talking about high-speed pursuit roadblocks. We're talking about mandatory checkpoints which are done to catch people who are committing crimes of possession that don't involve any other aggressive crimes.

Well, it depends on the person. KCchiefs was actually arguing that there shouldn't be any high-speed pursuit roadblocks, even when someone has committed an aggressive crime and is an imminent threat to others.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 05:06 PM
Well, not where I live. I know the cops where I live and get along with them. Although it does seem as though the cops in small towns and more rural areas are generally better than the cops in big cities.

Possibly, but you'd still be surprised at the level of douchebag-ness in the rural police forces. They just don't have enough opportunities to behave like cops in big cities, or I'm sure at least some of them would. My former next-door neighbor is the deputy sheriff and is known as the guy who had a baby with a 15 year old girl while married and didn't go to jail for it.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 05:13 PM
You know, I don't really like this sort of question because its kind of a continuum game. But in any case, I'll answer it.

In a major city? Almost certainly yes. I can't imagine a case where it wouldn't be.

On a highway in a rural area? I think there are cases where it might not be.

Extreme speeds like this kind of make it tricky, but I guess what I'd say is, are you pulling them over because they actually are (As in, currently) an immediate threat to the people around them? Or are you pulling them over because they might, at some point in the future, be a threat to someone? Its especially absurd when people get pulled over for driving with the flow of traffic, its completely obviously not a danger to anyone, but hey, they have to fill their quotas... that's immoral.

Driving itself is a danger to others. We all decide what kind of danger we are willing to put up with, and that means most people aren't going to go 120mph in a city because it means certain death. If someone, for some reason, decides to try it and kills someone, then they are liable for damages as well as manslaughter.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 05:18 PM
What if someone can drive through a major city at 120 MPH without hurting anyone? Why should that person be stopped and get a ticket? :) My point is simply that there can be some disagreement on what "aggression" actually is and whether someone is actually endangering someone else or not. I think all of us probably agree that someone who uses drugs in their own home isn't hurting anyone else. But when people are driving out on the road with numerous other cars on the road, people inevitably affect other people by the way they drive.

Why would someone who is crazy enough to drive 120mph stop for police? If they're crazy enough to do that, then they're most likely going to lead police on a chase that inevitably kills way more people than it would otherwise. If someone drives 120mph through a city then kills someone, they are liable for damages as well as charges of manslaughter.

What you are referring to is pre-crime. There have been all manner of arguments used to justify arresting someone who has hurt nobody just because it seems like they are going to. The law, however, has no place in pre-crime. IF they hurt someone, then they are criminals, not before. We can't treat people like criminals before they've done anything wrong, no matter what. As much as you'd like to think we can prevent this sort of thing with laws, we can't. Shit happens, and laws really don't lower the rate of these instances anyway. It is going to happen whether there is a law against it or not.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 05:22 PM
What you are referring to is pre-crime. There have been all manner of arguments used to justify arresting someone who has hurt nobody just because it seems like they are going to. The law, however, has no place in pre-crime. IF they hurt someone, then they are criminals, not before. We can't treat people like criminals before they've done anything wrong, no matter what. As much as you'd like to think we can prevent this sort of thing with laws, we can't. Shit happens, and laws really don't lower the rate of these instances anyway. It is going to happen whether there is a law against it or not.

So does that mean that you're in favor of abolishing stop signs and traffic lights?

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 05:28 PM
But anyway, this is getting way off topic. Someone please bring this back to the original article/video.

It makes perfect sense. You had to make an appeal to emotion and, just out of pure coincidence, decided the topic was no longer worth investigating immediately after that. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that you were reduced to bleeding your heart for the would-be victims. In this case, however, you don't even know if anyone would have gotten killed. You're just assuming that they would have so that you can make the argument that "see this is what happens", when in reality, it probably would have happened either way.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 05:31 PM
It makes perfect sense. You had to make an appeal to emotion and, just out of pure coincidence, decided the topic was no longer worth investigating immediately after that. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that you were reduced to bleeding your heart for the would-be victims. In this case, however, you don't even know if anyone would have gotten killed. You're just assuming that they would have so that you can make the argument that "see this is what happens", when in reality, it probably would have happened either way.

Whatever. Answer my question about stop signs and traffic lights.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 05:31 PM
I don't care. If this guy doesn't realize how absurd it is to say that the police should never engage in a high speed pursuit to catch someone who's posing an imminent threat to the lives of others, then he has problems and has absolutely no grasp of reality.

Have you ever thought of the fact that most people who drive 120mph wouldn't be driving 120mph if the police weren't chasing them? Chases only lead to more deaths because it takes a long time to stop someone and in that time, the desperation involved is going to get someone hurt. If the police wouldn't chase people, then the death rate would go way down.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 05:34 PM
But it's ok if someone breaks into a home and murders a family of 6. The police shouldn't do anything about that.

Who the hell said anything remotely close to that? Someone who breaks into a home and kills 6 people is worlds away from someone who MIGHT commit a crime in the future because they are supposedly "dangerous".

Brett85
10-25-2013, 05:37 PM
Have you ever thought of the fact that most people who drive 120mph wouldn't be driving 120mph if the police weren't chasing them? Chases only lead to more deaths because it takes a long time to stop someone and in that time, the desperation involved is going to get someone hurt. If the police wouldn't chase people, then the death rate would go way down.

So you're actually arguing that the police should never chase someone, even if that person has committed an act of aggression against someone else and poses an immenent threat to other people? Do you not realize how absurd that sounds?

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 05:44 PM
You criticized the police for accidentally killing people during a high speed chase. If you're saying that the police should never engage in a high speed chase because they might accidentally kill someone, then you're going to have a lot of murderers on the loose who will cause harm to other people. That's my point.

Yeah, because high-speed chases that only make the situation more dangerous is the ONLY WAY to stop criminals. Let's not even mention the high-speed chases that happen because someone was speeding or wasn't wearing a seatbelt, or had a headlight out, etc.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 05:52 PM
I don't see why I should even bother responding to any of your posts, when you make ridiculous assertions, like the police shouldn't pursue someone who's committed an act of aggression against someone else. Like I said, step into the real world and get a clue.

Why should they chase them when they could just as easily track them down and get them when they stop the car? High speed chases just make everything more dangerous, and most police chases are for people who the police don't know committed any crime except maybe going a little over the speed limit or not having a seat belt on.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 05:56 PM
I'm not defending illegal searches or anything of the sort. I've simply been arguing that there are times when the police have to pursue someone who is posing an imminent threat to other people. Really, it's hard for me to believe I even have to argue this. If you believe in any government at all, then you have to believe that the government at least exists to try to protect people's lives when they're being threatened by someone. And if you don't believe in any government, then it seems like you should be in favor of private police forces coming to the aid of people who's lives are being threatened.

Government was never meant to protect people, and it's extremely inefficient at that. It's there to protect people's rights and defend from foreign enemies, but not to protect citizens from other citizens. That is something it cannot do. The only reason they do it now is so that they have control over everyone.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 05:59 PM
Why should they chase them when they could just as easily track them down and get them when they stop the car? High speed chases just make everything more dangerous, and most police chases are for people who the police don't know committed any crime except maybe going a little over the speed limit or not having a seat belt on.

Because if it's actually a situation where you have a violent criminal, he presents a threat to other people on the road and would likely cause harm to other people during that time. And I'm not sure how the police could track them down if it was dark and they couldn't get the license plate or the make of the vehicle. And the person could very well flee into a different state where he wouldn't be found.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 06:01 PM
Government was never meant to protect people, and it's extremely inefficient at that. It's there to protect people's rights and defend from foreign enemies, but not to protect citizens from other citizens. That is something it cannot do. The only reason they do it now is so that they have control over everyone.

You can't protect people's rights if you can't protect people. If a person gets murdered by someone, they no longer have a right to life and liberty. They're just dead, they have no liberties and no rights. (And I'm not saying that people shouldn't bear some responsibility for defending themselves as well)

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 06:05 PM
And I'm trying to make a "point" with what I posted, which is that there are good cops and bad cops. There are cops who do good things and cops who do bad things, and you can't just make a blanket statement criticizing all cops whenever one cop abuses his authority and does something bad. Cops are no different than any other human beings. There are people who are good human beings who want to do what's right and try to help out their fellow man. There are people who are bad human beings who harm others and have little respect for their fellow human beings. Someone isn't all of a sudden either "good" or "bad" because they became a cop. Whether someone is a good or bad human being doesn't depend on their profession.

Sure, becoming a cop doesn't automatically make someone evil (although it certainly could). The things they do as part of their everyday job make them evil. That means anyone who is a cop might not be a bad person, but they all do bad things because it's part of their job. If I knew a job was going to require me to do bad things, then I wouldn't do it. Many cops really are psychopaths because they sign up for the job knowing full well what bad things they are going to do as a result, and they can't fucking wait. Some of them really are driven by their desire to protect people, but they still end up doing bad things because, once again, it's part of the job. You can't do only good things and be a cop for long.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 06:06 PM
Not everyone believes that drug laws are wrong or unnecessary. I do believe that these laws are unnecessary, but many if not most people disagree with me, so many police officers aren't going to think that they're doing anything wrong if they arrest someone for some drug related crime.

That doesn't change the fact that what they are doing is wrong. Ignorance is no excuse. If you really believed what they were doing was wrong, then you wouldn't be trying to justify it.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 06:07 PM
Well, it depends on the person. KCchiefs was actually arguing that there shouldn't be any high-speed pursuit roadblocks, even when someone has committed an aggressive crime and is an imminent threat to others.

I must have missed the post where he said that.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 06:10 PM
That doesn't change the fact that what they are doing is wrong. Ignorance is no excuse. If you really believed what they were doing was wrong, then you wouldn't be trying to justify it.

Who defines "right" and "wrong?" Like I said, I'm not in favor of drug laws, but I certainly don't see any biblical principle that says that it's wrong for the police to arrest people for using drugs. I think it's unnecessary and too costly, but I don't exactly see where you got that it's absolutely black and white that it's "wrong" or "immoral."

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 06:10 PM
So does that mean that you're in favor of abolishing stop signs and traffic lights?

I don't know about stop signs, but traffic lights, absolutely. You should see the studies they've done that traffic lights are more dangerous and inefficient than intersections without any.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 06:10 PM
I must have missed the post where he said that.

He definitely said it. He was making the same argument that you've been making.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 06:12 PM
So you're actually arguing that the police should never chase someone, even if that person has committed an act of aggression against someone else and poses an immenent threat to other people? Do you not realize how absurd that sounds?

Maybe it wouldn't sound so absurd if you could pull your head out of your ass. Is a police chase the ONLY way to stop criminals? Most criminals aren't driving any more dangerously than other people before the cops start chasing them. Wait until they stop the vehicle and get out.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 06:12 PM
I don't know about stop signs, but traffic lights, absolutely. You should see the studies they've done that traffic lights are more dangerous and inefficient than intersections without any.

My point is that if you support something like making people pay a fine for running a stop sign, then you're not really opposed to all "pre-crime." Or if you support laws against reckless driving, then you're not necessary against all "pre-crime," since there are times when people get pulled over for reckless driving where they didn't literally hit another vehicle and hurt someone else.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 06:14 PM
Because if it's actually a situation where you have a violent criminal, he presents a threat to other people on the road and would likely cause harm to other people during that time. And I'm not sure how the police could track them down if it was dark and they couldn't get the license plate or the make of the vehicle. And the person could very well flee into a different state where he wouldn't be found.

A violent criminal usually doesn't pose any more of a threat to people on the road than anyone else does. If he committed murder and is now driving away, he's no more likely to kill someone on the highway while he's driving just because he's a criminal.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 06:18 PM
Maybe it wouldn't sound so absurd if you could pull your head out of your ass. Is a police chase the ONLY way to stop criminals? Most criminals aren't driving any more dangerously than other people before the cops start chasing them. Wait until they stop the vehicle and get out.

Maybe you didn't read the example that I gave you. There was a situation where there was a guy who was driving high on drugs who was trying to stop my parents, trying to push them off the road. The guy drove right beside them in the other lane for a couple miles, then he stopped right in the middle of the road and made them go around him, then he pulled up to an intersection with a stop sign and parked the car sideways across the road, so that my parents couldn't drive around him. Then he actually got out of his pickup and started walking towards my parents. He had a black coat on, and it was hard to know what he had underneath it. He reached in his pocket as he was walking towards my parents, and at that exact moment, the Sheriff showed up. He give the man instructions to stand down and not resist arrest, and he took off in his pickup and ran from the Sheriff. The Sheriff pursued him along with police officers and highway patrollmen. They eventually caught him by using roadblocks and spike strips. The freak is now in prison and can't hurt anyone else, and the world is a much better place now that this lunatic can't cause harm to other people.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 06:18 PM
You can't protect people's rights if you can't protect people.

That is ridiculous. Of course you can protect people's rights without being their guardian angel. The Constitution was made mainly to limit government from violating people's rights.


If a person gets murdered by someone, they no longer have a right to life and liberty. They're just dead, they have no liberties and no rights. (And I'm not saying that people shouldn't bear some responsibility for defending themselves as well)

That doesn't mean we can justify pre-crime. It doesn't matter how strongly you want to protect people. You can't predict whether someone is going to be a criminal in the future. You just can't. The main reason for the legal system is justice, not crime prevention.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 06:21 PM
Who defines "right" and "wrong?" Like I said, I'm not in favor of drug laws, but I certainly don't see any biblical principle that says that it's wrong for the police to arrest people for using drugs. I think it's unnecessary and too costly, but I don't exactly see where you got that it's absolutely black and white that it's "wrong" or "immoral."

Do you see any biblical principle that says it's wrong to kidnap people against their will? Because that's what it is.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 06:21 PM
That doesn't mean we can justify pre-crime. It doesn't matter how strongly you want to protect people. You can't predict whether someone is going to be a criminal in the future. You just can't. The main reason for the legal system is justice, not crime prevention.

What exactly do you mean by "pre-crime?" That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a situation where someone committed an act of aggression against someone else, and the police chased this person, stopped him, and arrested him.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 06:22 PM
Do you see any biblical principle that says it's wrong to kidnap people against their will? Because that's what it is.

You can claim that it's kidnapping to take someone and put them in prison for murder. You're putting them behind bars against their will. It seems like you could claim that it's "kidnapping" to put people in prison for any crime.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 06:23 PM
My point is that if you support something like making people pay a fine for running a stop sign, then you're not really opposed to all "pre-crime." Or if you support laws against reckless driving, then you're not necessary against all "pre-crime," since there are times when people get pulled over for reckless driving where they didn't literally hit another vehicle and hurt someone else.

I don't support making people pay a fine for that. I don't support laws against reckless driving. Next question.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 06:24 PM
I don't support making people pay a fine for that. I don't support laws against reckless driving. Next question.

Ok, so you basically just don't support any laws.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 06:27 PM
What exactly do you mean by "pre-crime?" That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a situation where someone committed an act of aggression against someone else, and the police chased this person, stopped him, and arrested him.

Why is a chase the best way to stop this person? Why not arrest them when they've already stopped and gotten out of the car?

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 06:28 PM
You can claim that it's kidnapping to take someone and put them in prison for murder. You're putting them behind bars against their will. It seems like you could claim that it's "kidnapping" to put people in prison for any crime.

Except putting them in prison for murder is justified because there's a victim. Putting someone in prison for drugs is not justified because there's no victim. No victim, no crime.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 06:29 PM
Ok, so you basically just don't support any laws.

Where the hell did you come up with that? Why are you spewing hyperbole?

heavenlyboy34
10-25-2013, 06:29 PM
Ok, so you basically just don't support any laws.lolz :D

Brett85
10-25-2013, 06:30 PM
Really, the society you advocate would actually be far worse than what anarcho capitalists even advocate. Anarcho capitalists aren't even against stop signs, traffic lights, reckless driving laws, etc, just as long as they're made by the private individuals who own the roads and enforced by private police officers/security officers. If you had private companies that owned the roads, they could make rules that forbid speeding, reckless driving, running through stop signs, etc. And they could hire private police officers to track down people who broke the rules of the road, and that would inevitably involve high speech chases.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 06:31 PM
Why is a chase the best way to stop this person? Why not arrest them when they've already stopped and gotten out of the car?

How can you arrest someone when they get out of the car if you're not following/chasing that person? How can the police arrest the person when they get out of their car if they're not actually in that specific location? Your arguments have absolutely no logic behind them.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 06:34 PM
Except putting them in prison for murder is justified because there's a victim. Putting someone in prison for drugs is not justified because there's no victim. No victim, no crime.

Not everyone agrees on what crimes are actually victimless crimes and what crimes are actually an act of aggression.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 06:36 PM
Really, the society you advocate would actually be far worse than what anarcho capitalists even advocate. Anarcho capitalists aren't even against stop signs, traffic lights, reckless driving laws, etc, just as long as they're made by the private individuals who own the roads and enforced by private police officers/security officers. If you had private companies that owned the roads, they could make rules that forbid speeding, reckless driving, running through stop signs, etc. And they could hire private police officers to track down people who broke the rules of the road, and that would inevitably involve high speech chases.

As if you knew what society would look like. You're such a bull-shitter.

By the way, have you listened to any anarchists, because I'm pretty sure most of the ones I've spoken with oppose traffic lights and definitely reckless driving laws. Most of them believe in the no-victim-no-crime principle. And I'm not really sure how many believe in private police on the road ways, but it's definitely not all of them.

Suffice it to say, I don't think even a private road company would do any of the ridiculous police things that people do now. It's laughable to think that a private company is going to have any interest in going on high speed chases for someone who went to fast on their road once. It's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 06:40 PM
How can you arrest someone when they get out of the car if you're not following/chasing that person? How can the police arrest the person when they get out of their car if they're not actually in that specific location? Your arguments have absolutely no logic behind them.

Following them isn't the same thing as chasing them. There are more ways to follow them than just with your car, too. We have technology. I never said they couldn't be in that location. Just to wait until there's no danger of them driving away. If they're at a gas station or something and out pumping gas, they're not very likely to drive away from the police if they confront them there.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 06:41 PM
As if you knew what society would look like. You're such a bull-shitter.

By the way, have you listened to any anarchists, because I'm pretty sure most of the ones I've spoken with oppose traffic lights and definitely reckless driving laws. Most of them believe in the no-victim-no-crime principle. And I'm not really sure how many believe in private police on the road ways, but it's definitely not all of them.

I'm telling you what the anarchists have told me, what they advocate. And you're actually saying that an anarchist would be in favor of punishing a private road building company for putting up traffic lights? Wow, you're simply delusional.

heavenlyboy34
10-25-2013, 06:41 PM
How can you arrest someone when they get out of the car if you're not following/chasing that person? How can the police arrest the person when they get out of their car if they're not actually in that specific location? Your arguments have absolutely no logic behind them.
There's this thing nowadays called a helicopter. Perhaps you've heard them mentioned in the news and so forth? Police can use them to follow a suspect till he stops, then summon ground crew to the location. The wonders of technology! :D

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 06:43 PM
Not everyone agrees on what crimes are actually victimless crimes and what crimes are actually an act of aggression.

Well, it's pretty cut-and-dry. If you're going to tell me that selling drugs is not a victimless crime, then be my guest and completely discredit yourself.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 06:45 PM
There's this thing nowadays called a helicopter. Perhaps you've heard them mentioned in the news and so forth? Police can use them to follow a suspect till he stops, then summon ground crew to the location. The wonders of technology! :D

The purpose of stopping a violent criminal immediately is to stop him from causing more harm to other people. In the incident with my parents, you had a guy who was high on drugs who was harassing my parents just for the heck of it, trying to force them off the road and keep them from going where they were trying to go. If he had simply been left alone rather than stopped, he would've tried to harrass and harm other people. He was an imminent threat to other people in the area. He was absolutely nuts, completely out of his mind.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 06:46 PM
I'm telling you what the anarchists have told me, what they advocate. And you're actually saying that an anarchist would be in favor of punishing a private road building company for putting up traffic lights? Wow, you're simply delusional.

No, I never said anything of the sort. Here's how it is:

1. The company probably wouldn't put up traffic lights in the first place because traffic lights cause more accidents than they prevent and are very inefficient.
2. I don't necessarily advocate private roads.
3. What the hell? Since when have I said anything about punishing anybody for any road crimes, much less punishing private road companies? And since when have I ever mentioned anarchists supporting this?

Brett85
10-25-2013, 06:46 PM
Well, it's pretty cut-and-dry. If you're going to tell me that selling drugs is not a victimless crime, then be my guest and completely discredit yourself.

I'm opposed to the war on drugs. I'm just saying that there are other people who don't believe that it's a victimless crime.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 06:47 PM
I'm telling you what the anarchists have told me, what they advocate. And you're actually saying that an anarchist would be in favor of punishing a private road building company for putting up traffic lights? Wow, you're simply delusional.

Not all anarchists believe the same thing.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 06:48 PM
2. I don't necessarily advocate private roads.

That's what I'm saying. Even anarcho capitalism is a better ideology than what you support. You seem to think that there should be a government, but that the government just shouldn't do anything at all, even protect people who are being harmed by someone else.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 06:49 PM
The purpose of stopping a violent criminal immediately is to stop him from causing more harm to other people. In the incident with my parents, you had a guy who was high on drugs who was harassing my parents just for the heck of it, trying to force them off the road and keep them from going where they were trying to go. If he had simply been left alone rather than stopped, he would've tried to harrass and harm other people. He was an imminent threat to other people in the area. He was absolutely nuts, completely out of his mind.

Did that person actually hurt anyone, or did it just kind of seem like he was going to? Because we're getting back into the area of pre-crime now.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 06:50 PM
Did that person actually hurt anyone, or did it just kind of seem like he was going to? Because we're getting back into the area of pre-crime now.

Ok, so it wouldn't have been a crime until my parents had been murdered? Wow.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 06:50 PM
I'm opposed to the war on drugs. I'm just saying that there are other people who don't believe that it's a victimless crime.

Ok, well they're wrong. You believe that, don't you? If you believe that your convictions are right, then why are you so concerned about what other people believe?

Brett85
10-25-2013, 06:50 PM
It's a crime to try to keep people in one place, to try to keep them from going where they're trying to go. It's similar to kidnapping.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 06:52 PM
That's what I'm saying. Even anarcho capitalism is a better ideology than what you support. You seem to think that there should be a government, but that the government just shouldn't do anything at all, even protect people who are being harmed by someone else.

I don't get how that would be any worse than private roads, seeing as how you don't have any examples of private roads to compare it to. I never said anyone shouldn't protect someone who's being harmed. They should, but why does that require police officers to exist? Can't the same person who is a police officer not be one and still help out?

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 06:53 PM
Ok, so it wouldn't have been a crime until my parents had been murdered? Wow.

If you think that's what was going to happen, then you're welcome to speculate. I still don't think it justifies pre-crime. It's not a crime until someone is harmed, that is true, but having laws against victimless crimes doesn't actually prevent any crime.

The only effective method do defend against criminals is self-defense. If someone else wants to help out, then they can do so, but that doesn't mean police have to do it. I might even be able to imagine a scenario in which these people got into a high-speed chase, but in 99% of cases, that's not why the chase happened.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 06:53 PM
Criminal restraint:

http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_21/Article_34/21-3424.html

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 06:53 PM
It's a crime to try to keep people in one place, to try to keep them from going where they're trying to go. It's similar to kidnapping.

Ok, your point?

bunklocoempire
10-25-2013, 06:54 PM
According to police, 37-year-old Sammie Wallace grabbed a toddler from her mother’s shopping cart and held a knife to her throat. Police released video and 911 audio from the June 17 incident last week.

Believing that the child had been harmed by Wallace, a heroic police officer, Capt. David Huff, shot the man at point-blank range. The child was unharmed in the horrifying ordeal.

Wallace had no prior connection to the child or her mother, police said.

Mother's responsibility. Every mom that I'm related to wouldn't need a cop to take care of this for them. Seriously. Even with their 2nd amendment rights trampled.

And, if things had happened to go sideways, every mom that I'm related to wouldn't blame "lack of heroic cop" but rather themselves.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 06:54 PM
If you think that's what was going to happen, then you're welcome to speculate. I still don't think it justifies pre-crime. It's not a crime until someone is harmed, that is true, but having laws against victimless crimes doesn't actually prevent any crime.

It's a crime to try to run someone off the road, and to sit in the middle of the road and try try to prevent them from going where they want to go. If you were ever in a situation like that, I'm pretty sure you would think differently.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 06:55 PM
Ok, your point?

This man committed an act of aggression against my parents, and the police were absolutely justified in chasing, catching, and arresting this sick and evil person.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 06:58 PM
Mother's responsibility. Every mom that I'm related to wouldn't need a cop to take care of this for them. Seriously. Even with their 2nd amendment rights trampled.

And, if things had happened to go sideways, every mom that I'm related to wouldn't blame "lack of heroic cop" but rather themselves.

Yeah, I'm sure it would've been easy for the mother to shoot and kill this man without shooting the child as well. :rolleyes:

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 07:01 PM
Mother's responsibility. Every mom that I'm related to wouldn't need a cop to take care of this for them. Seriously. Even with their 2nd amendment rights trampled.

And, if things had happened to go sideways, every mom that I'm related to wouldn't blame "lack of heroic cop" but rather themselves.

True that.

bunklocoempire
10-25-2013, 07:03 PM
Yeah, I'm sure it would've been easy for the mother to shoot and kill this man without shooting the child as well. :rolleyes:

Every mom that I'm related to is what I wrote. Every mom that I'm related to would've rushed this guy with their bare hands.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 07:05 PM
Every mom that I'm related to is what I wrote.

How could they shoot and kill this man without shooting the child? The only way they could've hit this man without hitting the child is to shoot low, at his legs. That would simply injure him and not kill him, which would give him time to slit the child's throat and kill her.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 07:05 PM
It's a crime to try to run someone off the road, and to sit in the middle of the road and try try to prevent them from going where they want to go. If you were ever in a situation like that, I'm pretty sure you would think differently.

Was he actually preventing them from going away, or were they just stopping to see what he was on about? Trying to run someone off the road is certainly an act of aggression, and appropriate defensive actions should be taken, but high-speed police chase is probably the last thing I would think of to stop that kind of behavior.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 07:07 PM
This man committed an act of aggression against my parents, and the police were absolutely justified in chasing, catching, and arresting this sick and evil person.

Sure they were, but the police chase probably wasn't necessary. You don't need police to stop someone who's doing that stuff. A normal citizen can take all the measures that police can when someone is clearly trying to harm someone. Self-defense would have been the first thing I would have thought of.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 07:07 PM
Was he actually preventing them from going away, or were they just stopping to see what he was on about? Trying to run someone off the road is certainly an act of aggression, and appropriate defensive actions should be taken, but high-speed police chase is probably the last thing I would think of to stop that kind of behavior.

He was trying to stop them from going home. He parked sideways in the road, at an intersection, so that they couldn't get past. That is a crime. He was infringing on their rights.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 07:08 PM
How could they shoot and kill this man without shooting the child? The only way they could've hit this man without hitting the child is to shoot low, at his legs. That would simply injure him and not kill him, which would give him time to slit the child's throat and kill her.

Are you sure that's the ONLY way?

Brett85
10-25-2013, 07:09 PM
Sure they were, but the police chase probably wasn't necessary. You don't need police to stop someone who's doing that stuff. A normal citizen can take all the measures that police can when someone is clearly trying to harm someone. Self-defense would have been the first thing I would have thought of.

What's the point of having government if the government isn't even going to try to stop people who are in the act of harming other people? My parents didn't have a gun in the car, so I guess they basically would've just been screwed if they lived in your world, where the police shouldn't come to the defense of anyone.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 07:09 PM
He was trying to stop them from going home. He parked sideways in the road, at an intersection, so that they couldn't get past. That is a crime. He was infringing on their rights.

Yeah, self-defense would be completely justified in that case. It would be a very good way to handle the situation. High speed police chase... not so much.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 07:10 PM
Are you sure that's the ONLY way?

Or shoot at his head. But you better be a very good shot, or else you would hit the child.

bunklocoempire
10-25-2013, 07:10 PM
How could they shoot and kill this man without shooting the child? The only way they could've hit this man without hitting the child is to shoot low, at his legs. That would simply injure him and not kill him, which would give him time to slit the child's throat and kill her.

So where'd you get this crystal ball of yours? And does it show anything where the rest of the people in the store jumped in following the mother's lead?

;)

Brett85
10-25-2013, 07:11 PM
Yeah, self-defense would be completely justified in that case. It would be a very good way to handle the situation. High speed police chase... not so much.

Actually, it wasn't even a "high speed chase." The guy was actually only driving 55 MPH, but he wouldn't pull over for the police. He simply started driving through fields to try to get away.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 07:12 PM
So where'd you get this crystal ball of yours? And does it show anything where the rest of the people in the store jumped in following the mother's lead?

;)

You can't just take immediate action or use immediate force against someone who's holding a knife to a 2 year old girl's throat. That kind of situation has to be handled very carefully, to ensure the safety of the child. The police handled the situation perfectly here.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 07:14 PM
What's the point of having government if the government isn't even going to try to stop people who are in the act of harming other people? My parents didn't have a gun in the car, so I guess they basically would've just been screwed if they lived in your world, where the police shouldn't come to the defense of anyone.

Because the government CAN'T do these things. Think about what you're saying. There is nothing the government can do that a private citizen can't do to stop a crime, and the government can't be in all places at once, so calling on someone who is miles away to be the sole person who can stop a crime isn't the best solution to crime. Government doesn't prevent crime at all. It CAN'T prevent crime because it is no more able than any other citizen who may be in the vicinity at the time. The point of having a government is to protect people from foreign enemies and to stop tyranny from arising. At least, that was the point of the Constitution.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 07:15 PM
Actually, it wasn't even a "high speed chase." The guy was actually only driving 55 MPH, but he wouldn't pull over for the police. He simply started driving through fields to try to get away.

Ok, cool story.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 07:15 PM
You can't just take immediate action or use immediate force against someone who's holding a knife to a 2 year old girl's throat. That kind of situation has to be handled very carefully, to ensure the safety of the child. The police handled the situation perfectly here.

By doing what you said couldn't be done...

Brett85
10-25-2013, 07:16 PM
Because the government CAN'T do these things. Think about what you're saying. There is nothing the government can do that a private citizen can't do to stop a crime, and the government can't be in all places at once, so calling on someone who is miles away to be the sole person who can stop a crime isn't the best solution to crime. Government doesn't prevent crime at all. It CAN'T prevent crime because it is no more able than any other citizen who may be in the vicinity at the time. The point of having a government is to protect people from foreign enemies and to stop tyranny from arising. At least, that was the point of the Constitution.

So the government should protect people from foreign enemies, but not domestic enemies? And "tyranny" certainly arose when this man committed an act of aggression against my parents. And I'm not saying that people should only rely on the police for their safety, because like you said, the police can't be in all places at once. But they should still try to help people when they can.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 07:20 PM
And why are you going against what you said originally? Originally, you said that you weren't talking about high speed chases and roadblocks that are used against a violent criminal. Were you simply playing devil's advocate throughout this entire thread?


I don't think we're talking about high-speed pursuit roadblocks. We're talking about mandatory checkpoints which are done to catch people who are committing crimes of possession that don't involve any other aggressive crimes.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 07:24 PM
So the government should protect people from foreign enemies, but not domestic enemies? And "tyranny" certainly arose when this man committed an act of aggression against my parents. And I'm not saying that people should only rely on the police for their safety, because like you said, the police can't be in all places at once. But they should still try to help people when they can.

If the enemy is domestic, then I don't see why private citizens couldn't stop it just as well as the government.

You're using the wrong definition of tyranny and appealing to emotion again. The point is that police wouldn't be able to help anyone any more effectively than anyone else. You can either trust that some people are still going to help out when they see a crime in progress, or you can erect a standing army that violates everyone's rights just to prevent a very, very, very small minority of crimes.

ETA: And in all likelihood, would actually increase crimes because the abuse of power that would inevitably occur and the victimless crime laws that would no doubt be enacted.

PaulConventionWV
10-25-2013, 07:25 PM
And why are you going against what you said originally? Originally, you said that you weren't talking about high speed chases and roadblocks that are used against a violent criminal. Were you simply playing devil's advocate throughout this entire thread?

I was talking about road blocks, not high speed chases. The purpose of the post was to distinguish between a road block and a checkpoint, which is a much worse form of tyranny.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 07:29 PM
If the enemy is domestic, then I don't see why private citizens couldn't stop it just as well as the government.

You're using the wrong definition of tyranny and appealing to emotion again. The point is that police wouldn't be able to help anyone any more effectively than anyone else. You can either trust that some people are still going to help out when they see a crime in progress, or you can erect a standing army that violates everyone's rights just to prevent a very, very, very small minority of crimes.

There was no one else to help my parents. They were on a county road where no one else was driving. And I thought that you were at least in favor of having a county sheriff even though you're opposed to having police force? The county sheriff was the first person on the scene.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 07:33 PM
If the enemy is domestic, then I don't see why private citizens couldn't stop it just as well as the government.

Then why couldn't private citizens stop a foreign enemy just as well as the government?

heavenlyboy34
10-25-2013, 07:49 PM
Then why couldn't private citizens stop a foreign enemy just as well as the government?
They could if let free to do so. The reason the Japanese didn't invade the mainland is because they feared a "rifle behind every blade of grass".

Brett85
10-25-2013, 07:56 PM
They could if let free to do so. The reason the Japanese didn't invade the mainland is because they feared a "rifle behind every blade of grass".

That's why it seems like PaulWV's position is inconsistent. He said that private citizens can stop a domestic enemy, but not a foreign enemy.

kcchiefs6465
10-25-2013, 08:46 PM
Well, it depends on the person. KCchiefs was actually arguing that there shouldn't be any high-speed pursuit roadblocks, even when someone has committed an aggressive crime and is an imminent threat to others.
You are apparently unaware of the dozens mowed down by police chases. The incredible rise in the mortality rates of all involved (including the public they are allegedly protecting) and that these police chases are hardly ever for something that constitutes a crime. Generally speaking minor traffic violations where the driver doesn't have a license or it's suspended are the majority. Hardly warranting of a high speed chase.

In fact many departments agree with me. At least once the chase reaches a certain level of danger it is called off and my [reasonable] solution is promoted. See below.

Most often they know the identity of the person they are chasing. There are obvious, better ways to handle the situation that wouldn't endanger the public as much. And if they are unaware of who specifically is driving the car a little investigating never hurt a detective.

But somehow you imply my position as radical? Not the cops whose policy is, or leads to, chasing down the smallest of petty crooks, running them over, running over other civilians, crashing their car into other motorists, escalating the situation to where the crashing of the person who's fleeing's car is highly likely... think of the kids, man.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 08:59 PM
You are apparently unaware of the dozens mowed down by police chases. The incredible rise in the mortality rates of all involved (including the public they are allegedly protecting) and that these police chases are hardly ever for something that constitutes a crime. Generally speaking minor traffic violations where the driver doesn't have a license or it's suspended are the majority. Hardly warranting of a high speed chase.

In fact many departments agree with me. At least once the chase reaches a certain level of danger it is called off and my [reasonable] solution is promoted. See below.

Most often they know the identity of the person they are chasing. There are obvious, better ways to handle the situation that wouldn't endanger the public as much. And if they are unaware of who specifically is driving the car a little investigating never hurt a detective.

But somehow you imply my position as radical? Not the cops whose policy is, or leads to, chasing down the smallest of petty crooks, running them over, running over other civilians, crashing their car into other motorists, escalating the situation to where the crashing of the person who's fleeing's car is highly likely... think of the kids, man.

I was explaining my position within the context of the police chasing a man who had committed an act of aggression against my parents. It wasn't some minor traffic violation. This was a man who was completely out of his mind and posed an imminent threat to other people. The chase didn't harm others since there was no one else on the road, and most of the time they were chasing him through fields. But they needed to catch him because he was in a completely warped state of mind and had the intention of harrassing/hurting anyone he came across.

kcchiefs6465
10-25-2013, 09:15 PM
I was explaining my position within the context of the police chasing a man who had committed an act of aggression against my parents. It wasn't some minor traffic violation. This was a man who was completely out of his mind and posed an imminent threat to other people. The chase didn't harm others since there was no one else on the road, and most of the time they were chasing him through fields. But they needed to catch him because he was in a completely warped state of mind and had the intention of harrassing/hurting anyone he came across.
Sounds scary.

I agree now. We need thousands of troops spread out across the land to protect the weak from the strong. The thing about that strategy that might come back to bite you is that you have no one to protect you from the "protectors." There were a few families in New York who did that kind of thing. They offered their protection services for a fee. Now it was too bad if you didn't feel like you needed their protection services. They felt like you did, and some even relied on them for such services.

You know, it is hard to really get a feel for what society would be like. Perhaps the man who had harassed your family years back would not have seen the day? Perhaps, if the threat was legitimate, he wouldn't have lived to see the day after? Perhaps if people knew of the repercussions of their actions less punks would take that chance? I don't know the circumstances of the situation aside from what you tell me and forgive me if I'm frank, your exaggerations and misrepresentations of my position alone lead me to not simply question your credibility but to question your character as well.

I think the underlying issue is that whether you think I, an admitted "cop basher," should be forced to pay for services I do not need, do not want, and would not ever use? If you do, why? If you don't, cool. You, and the majority of the rest of America should pony up the cost to pay for these thugs and their equipment. Of course other changes regarding accountability and a redefining of the role of police would have to occur before I could ever endorse even that.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 09:22 PM
I think the underlying issue is that whether you think I, an admitted "cop basher," should be forced to pay for services I do not need, do not want, and would not ever use? If you do, why? If you don't, cool. You, and the majority of the rest of America should pony up the cost to pay for these thugs and their equipment. Of course other changes regarding accountability and a redefining of the role of police would have to occur before I could ever endorse even that.

Because I believe that the government should exist and have some role. I think the government should exist to defend life, liberty, and property, which is what Justin Amash and other libertarians believe. Protecting the lives of the American people is a core function of government. (Although I acknowledge that the police can't be everywhere at once, and people do have to be ready to defend themselves as well.) Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and property under the 5th amendment, and it's the proper role of the government to protect these rights. And what happened to my parents happened about a week ago, and I didn't exaggerate anything about it. It simply reaffirmed my belief that you and people like you are absolutely crazy on these type of issues.

Christian Liberty
10-25-2013, 09:34 PM
Because I believe that the government should exist and have some role. I think the government should exist to defend life, liberty, and property, which is what Justin Amash and other libertarians believe. Protecting the lives of the American people is a core function of government. (Although I acknowledge that the police can't be everywhere at once, and people do have to be ready to defend themselves as well.) Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and property under the 5th amendment, and it's the proper role of the government to protect these rights. And what happened to my parents happened about a week ago, and I didn't exaggerate anything about it. It simply reaffirmed my belief that you and people like you are absolutely crazy on these type of issues.

While true, you don't have a right to security at an unwilling person's expense. While I agree that if government police exist and they see someone being harmed, it is appropriate for them to take action: I ultimately think the limited government libertarians are inconsistent with their own ideology. Eventually I reached a point intellectually where I just couldn't stand being knowingly inconsistent anymore.

heavenlyboy34
10-25-2013, 09:36 PM
Because I believe that the government should exist and have some role. I think the government should exist to defend life, liberty, and property, which is what Justin Amash and other libertarians believe. Protecting the lives of the American people is a core function of government. (Although I acknowledge that the police can't be everywhere at once, and people do have to be ready to defend themselves as well.) Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and property under the 5th amendment, and it's the proper role of the government to protect these rights. And what happened to my parents happened about a week ago, and I didn't exaggerate anything about it. It simply reaffirmed my belief that you and people like you are absolutely crazy on these type of issues.
Since you're a "Founding Father" fan, let me appeal to teh FF's here:


Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
~Benjamin Franklin

Brett85
10-25-2013, 09:37 PM
While true, you don't have a right to security at an unwilling person's expense. While I agree that if government police exist and they see someone being harmed, it is appropriate for them to take action: I ultimately think the limited government libertarians are inconsistent with their own ideology. Eventually I reached a point intellectually where I just couldn't stand being knowingly inconsistent anymore.

Like I said earlier, I think I even agree with your position more than others here who claim that they aren't anarchists. You've said that you don't have a problem with police, but they should just be private police. So in your theoretical world, my parents probably would've been able to call a private police agency to help them, and they could get help from them. It's just that they would probably receive a bill in the mail a few weeks later for receiving services from this private police force. (I assume this is how it would work. You can correct me if I'm wrong)

Brett85
10-25-2013, 09:39 PM
Since you're a "Founding Father" fan, let me appeal to teh FF's here:


~Benjamin Franklin

I don't think Benjamin Franklin advocated allowing violent criminals to get away and do what they want to do, and I don't think it takes away anyone's liberties to go after violent criminals.

kcchiefs6465
10-25-2013, 09:46 PM
Because I believe that the government should exist and have some role.
Okay. And you also believe that because you want something, if a majority of the other people want it as well, it is okay to take from the minority to fund it.



I think the government should exist to defend life, liberty, and property, which is what Justin Amash and other libertarians believe.
Appeals to authority are tired. If you cannot explain a position without always reverting back to, "Well, so and so believes this" perhaps you aren't qualified to argue the position? Or more likely, perhaps the position is ultimately indefensible?



Protecting the lives of the American people is a core function of government. (Although I acknowledge that the police can't be everywhere at once, and people do have to be ready to defend themselves as well.) Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and property under the 5th amendment, and it's the proper role of the government to protect these rights.
You are correct. You being such a avid Constitutionalist now, perhaps you could agree that all police aside from the Sheriff and those deputized be abolished? At the least, federal funding be ended. (which effectively would do about the same) There's this issue though, with the fact that I never signed, agreed to, or was informed of my obligation to a two hundred plus year old document. Now don't get me wrong (or rather, purposely misrepresent my position) the Constitution is a good foundation. Ultimately it is flawed, mainly in language; And any paper that says certain individuals be 3/5ths a man isn't worth much, in my opinion.


And what happened to my parents happened about a week ago, and I didn't exaggerate anything about it.
Were you there? People tell stories differently. I vaguely recall that you mentioned your parents called to report a drunk driver. Only after did it become they were chased, then attempted to be ran off the road, then all but murdered if the brave police officers weren't around. (even implying that I support murder based on my argument against the police "being around") This thread grew some 15 pages when I was at work so forgive me if my memory is a little foggy.



It simply reaffirmed my belief that you and people like you are absolutely crazy on these type of issues.
Right. "Absolutely crazy" for being morally and logically sound. The hoops some people jump through, I tell you. You know what's really "absolutely crazy?" Some people have this insane notion that simply because they want something then it is a Right. Some people feel that simply because the majority wants or says something that is correct, a Right, and/or moral. The people who point out the fallacies in that type of thinking are always branded as kooky or loons. The cognitive dissonance in the people is part of what allows this show to go on. You will justify your beliefs in any way you can.. from alleged prevented murders, to posting good-cop-luckily-saves-the-day threads, to appeals to emotion, straw men, and subtle implications as a cowardly version of ad hominem, or whatever else you can do.

You are right. I am wrong. You are sane. I am "absolutely crazy." The thing is, though, you couldn't begin to debate my position in any substantive manner. You will quote two sentences from this, purposely misrepresent it, and act as if you are somehow morally superior than I. It is annoying. It is your trademark. And it is why I lose my patience quickly when conversing with you.

RickyJ
10-25-2013, 09:54 PM
What evidence do you have that the bad cops are a "majority?"

The good ones get fired or killed, anymore questions?

Yes I am speaking generally here, of course there are some good ones that don't get killed or fired, but I taking about the majority of the good ones. They either turn bad, or are fired, or have an accident.

Cops have the highest rates of domestic violence, divorce, alcoholism, child abuse, drug use, suicide and murder suicide. While bad this is not evidence the majority is dirty. The circumstantial evidence the majority is dirty is the very rare cases of them actually serving and protecting anyone, which is suppose to be their job. Here one actually did his job, the child lived and the psycho got killed, probably what he was looking for anyway, suicide by cop.

heavenlyboy34
10-25-2013, 09:59 PM
I don't think Benjamin Franklin advocated allowing violent criminals to get away and do what they want to do,
red herring

and I don't think it takes away anyone's liberties to go after violent criminals.
Yes, but that's not the function of police, sorry. (as has been pointed out to you a number of times) That's what peace officers do (or would do if they existed).

Brett85
10-25-2013, 10:02 PM
1) I've never argued that it's Constitutional for the federal government to fund the police. I'm in favor of getting rid of that and having the police just be a state and local issue.

2) My parents called the police when a man pulled up in a vehicle beside them and followed right beside them in the opposite lane for two miles, and then the man stopped right in front of them in the middle of the road, trying to prevent them from getting through. If you think that is justified and not a cause for concern, then you're indeed very crazy. I don't like to be mean or rude, but I don't know what else to say about someone who has such a lack of compassion for other people and is ridiculously insensitive.

kcchiefs6465
10-25-2013, 10:08 PM
1) I've never argued that it's Constitutional for the federal government to fund the police. I'm in favor of getting rid of that and having the police just be a state and local issue.

2) My parents called the police when a man pulled up in a vehicle beside them and followed right beside them in the opposite lane for two miles, and then the man stopped right in front of them in the middle of the road, trying to prevent them from getting through. If you think that is justified and not a cause for concern, then you're indeed very crazy. I don't like to be mean or rude, but I don't know what else to say about someone who has such a lack of compassion for other people and is ridiculously insensitive.


You are right. I am wrong. You are sane. I am "absolutely crazy." The thing is, though, you couldn't begin to debate my position in any substantive manner. You will quote two sentences from this, purposely misrepresent it, and act as if you are somehow morally superior than I. It is annoying. It is your trademark. And it is why I lose my patience quickly when conversing with you.
Because you don't quote me doesn't make my 'prediction' of your response any less telling of your character and fundamental lack of any substantive response.

RickyJ
10-25-2013, 10:24 PM
2) My parents called the police when a man pulled up in a vehicle beside them and followed right beside them in the opposite lane for two miles, and then the man stopped right in front of them in the middle of the road, trying to prevent them from getting through.

Sounds like an extreme case of road rage. There are a lot of nuts out there, the best defense against lone nuts like this is not a cop, but a gun that you are trained to use.

RickyJ
10-25-2013, 10:31 PM
You can't just take immediate action or use immediate force against someone who's holding a knife to a 2 year old girl's throat. That kind of situation has to be handled very carefully, to ensure the safety of the child. The police handled the situation perfectly here.

It was ONE cop who did it, not the entire police department. How much of a hero are you when you shoot a nut with a knife to a toddler's throat after he started the "countdown." We have the police officer's word about the countdown, who else heard this "countdown?" I have doubts there was a countdown at all. Never trust a cop, ever.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 10:38 PM
Sounds like an extreme case of road rage. There are a lot of nuts out there, the best defense against lone nuts like this is not a cop, but a gun that you are trained to use.

Gun ownership is a right, not a requirement. I agree that people should defend themselves when they have to, and my dad is considering getting a concealed carry permit after this incident. He already owns guns that he keeps at his house. But that still doesn't mean that that is the answer in every situation. There are some people who aren't capable of defending themselves, who have to rely on the police in situations like that. If my mom were by herself in a situation like that, she wouldn't be able to use a gun to defend herself. She doesn't know anything about them and wouldn't know how to use one. And it just seems extremely insensitive for people to say something like, "well that's her fault, she has to defend herself, just like everything else does." The fact is that it should never be like that. It should never be the survival of the fittest, where only the strong survive. The government should be limited but should still help people out when their lives are in danger. That's just a basic, core function of government. If you don't even think the government should do that, then I don't know why you would even want the government to exist at all.

kcchiefs6465
10-25-2013, 10:48 PM
Gun ownership is a right, not a requirement. I agree that people should defend themselves when they have to, and my dad is considering getting a concealed carry permit after this incident. He already owns guns that he keeps at his house. But that still doesn't mean that that is the answer in every situation. There are some people who aren't capable of defending themselves, who have to rely on the police in situations like that. If my mom were by herself in a situation like that, she wouldn't be able to use a gun to defend herself. She doesn't know anything about them and wouldn't know how to use one. And it just seems extremely insensitive for people to say something like, "well that's her fault, she has to defend herself, just like everything else does." The fact is that it should never be like that. It should never be the survival of the fittest, where only the strong survive. The government should be limited but should still help people out when their lives are in danger. That's just a basic, core function of government. If you don't even think the government should do that, then I don't know why you would even want the government to exist at all.
There are solutions. Getting people to think outside of their preconceived box is the problem. (I'm not referring to you, specifically, and mean that as a general obstruction in solving these issues) So it's known, I don't necessarily advocate a private police force either. People who wish to fund a police force would be free to do so. Same way some call AAA instead of changing their flat tire. As long as Rights are just that, Rights, and that no one has claim to authority over another. What we have now is an institutionalized system of theft, waste, and abuse. There are steps that could be taken to change it. (and still not leave your parents out to dry if they ever needed assistance) The positive effects of what I could find myself in agreement with not only would improve the service to those who need the service, I wouldn't be taken from to pay for what I don't use.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 10:55 PM
There are solutions. Getting people to think outside of their preconceived box is the problem. (I'm not referring to you, specifically, and mean that as a general obstruction in solving these issues) So it's known, I don't necessarily advocate a private police force either. People who wish to fund a police force would be free to do so. Same way some call AAA instead of changing their flat tire. As long as Rights are just that, Rights, and that no one has claim to authority over another. What we have now is an institutionalized system of theft, waste, and abuse. There are steps that could be taken to change it. (and still not leave your parents out to dry if they ever needed assistance) The positive effects of what I could find myself in agreement with not only would improve the service to those who need the service, I wouldn't be taken from to pay for what I don't use.

Ok, but it seems like if you're in favor of having no taxes at all, then you should be in favor of having a private police force, because you can't fund even a limited government without taxes at all. The way I would envision a private police force working is that an individual would call the private police force when in trouble, and the private police force would come to their aid and help them out. But the individual would then receive a bill in the mail for the services of the private police force. I'm not exactly sure if that's how it would work, and I'm not advocating that, but I would rather have private police forces than have no police forces at all.

kcchiefs6465
10-25-2013, 11:08 PM
Ok, but it seems like if you're in favor of having no taxes at all, then you should be in favor of having a private police force, because you can't fund even a limited government without taxes at all. The way I would envision a private police force working is that an individual would call the private police force when in trouble, and the private police force would come to their aid and help them out. But the individual would then receive a bill in the mail for the services of the private police force. I'm not exactly sure if that's how it would work, and I'm not advocating that, but I would rather have private police forces than have no police forces at all.
I don't like the term "police force." I don't like the term police. It gives merit to the idea that the person or group has authority to stop and question somebody or is another class of civilian. People leaving people alone would be the best thing the world could strive for. There are various types of assholes who cannot be reasoned with. Verbally, physically, or through the Law. They are few and far between but everyone has a number. If they harass the wrong person, theirs may be called. As I mentioned earlier it is hard to imagine how it could be considering how far we've gone. People need to be firm and diligent in protecting their Rights. I could perhaps find myself in agreement with the philosophy of a Sheriff's department if a set of Natural universal standards were applied.

I understand there is an issue but I do know I want nothing to do with any police force. I do no harm and as such do not need to be harassed and impeded routinely. Any group of people traveling and finding themselves applying a law within the Law would find themselves at odds with me. I don't care how they came to being. So long as I'm not taken from to invest in a concept I disagree with all would be good. (assuming no one has any authority above anyone)