How would you like to be a cop for a day ?

[mrsat_98]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f9tZ688jgI

[A Son of Liberty]

Lobotomies are non-reversable.

[PaulConventionWV]

Lobotomies are non-reversable.

Sorry. Out of rep for ya.

All I can do is sit back and laugh at all of this "good cop" propaganda.

[Spikender]

"How'd you like it if we quit?"

"I'd... LOVE IT!"

[CaptainAmerica]

How would you like to carry a gun around judging people's character as good or bad based upon your own suspicion,cultural,moral upbringing and training provided by a state bent on taxing the shit out of people. No thanks.

[69360]

In Baltimore? Hell no.

Here in Maine or maybe Alaska? I'd consider it.

This is actually an interesting thought. If all of you here on RPF who constantly bitch and complain about police, BECAME the police, you could fix what you have issues with from within. Cops have a huge amount of discretion in enforcement.

[PaulConventionWV]

In Baltimore? Hell no.

Here in Maine or maybe Alaska? I'd consider it.

This is actually an interesting thought. If all of you here on RPF who constantly bitch and complain about police, BECAME the police, you could fix what you have issues with from within. Cops have a huge amount of discretion in enforcement.

Uh, no. It doesn't work like that. The system weeds out the good ones.

Even if you were somehow able to last more than a week as a "good" cop, the probability of you ever getting promoted to a position of actual authority and power is very unlikely.

Secondly, you don't change the system, it changes you. I am personally not willing to count on the idea that I would maintain the same attitude throughout my experience if I were to try to ride out the system and make it to a position of power. If you kiss up to these people long enough, you start believing what you say. If you're found out, though, forget it. Your days are numbered.

[Origanalist]

In Baltimore? Hell no.

Here in Maine or maybe Alaska? I'd consider it.

This is actually an interesting thought. If all of you here on RPF who constantly bitch and complain about police, BECAME the police, you could fix what you have issues with from within. Cops have a huge amount of discretion in enforcement.

Yes, yes, lets all become cops. :rolleyes: That would make the system work right.

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Troll_826fb4_1186856.jpg

[pcosmar]

This is actually an interesting thought. If all of you here on RPF who constantly bitch and complain about police, BECAME the police, you could fix what you have issues with from within. Cops have a huge amount of discretion in enforcement.

No.. I don't want them "fixed"..
Just how do you fix Authoritarian Control Enforcement??

That is what "police" are.. Control Enforcers.. The word police means "to control".

Why is it that you think Free People NEED to be controlled?

[oyarde]

Uh , no thanks .

[jmdrake]

Ah....that's nice. Now why not make your job easier and don't harass people allegedly selling cigarettes on the sidewalk? How about making your job easier by not beating homeless white guess to death? How about making your job easier by refusing to serve no knock warrants? How about making your job easier by refusing to arrest anyone for non violent victimless crimes? If you cut down your job to just fixing bicycles, helping pregnant women, responding to violent crime (like robberies) and directing traffic nobody would complain. I know I wouldn't. Am I the only one who's come to an intersection where the power was out and so the traffic light wasn't working and saw a cop pull up and expect him to get out and direct traffic only to see him drive on through? Have you ever sat there long enough to see that people, even at a busy intersection, simply took turns and the traffic flowed better without the cop's intervention or the traffic light? Does anybody see where I'm going with this?

[Anti Federalist]

If all of you here on RPF who constantly bitch and complain about police, BECAME the police, you could fix what you have issues with from within.

Why is this written in "deflection mode"?

"Bitch", "complain", "issues"?

I'm not the one with the problem: I'm not out there raiding people's homes, shooting their dogs, throwing innocent people into prison or death row, seizing their property, shooting grandmothers to death, torturing people to death or blowing baby's faces off with grenades.

Any person with their head screwed on straight will see the only "issue" here is out of control cops enforcing a corrupt system.

[69360]

Why is this written in "deflection mode"?

"Bitch", "complain", "issues"?

I'm not the one with the problem: I'm not out there raiding people's homes, shooting their dogs, throwing innocent people into prison or death row, seizing their property, shooting grandmothers to death, torturing people to death or blowing baby's faces off with grenades.

Any person with their head screwed on straight will see the only "issue" here is out of control cops enforcing a corrupt system.

Because while those things do happen, the accounts on here are largely anecdotal. It's just not as widespread as some of you would like it to be.

I can get behind things like legal weed, getting rid of mandatory minimum sentencing, and stopping militarization of police.

But the numbers just aren't there to support a systemic issue.

What percentage of dogs in the US are shot by cops? What percentage of grandmothers are shot by cops? What percentage of babies are blown up? If you actually look into it, like .001% usually.

[Zippyjuan]

Do I get to eat doughnuts and shoot dogs?

[TheTexan]

Do I get to eat doughnuts and shoot dogs?

Yes and no. You can shoot dogs, but eating doughnuts just makes the PD look bad.

[pcosmar]

What percentage of dogs in the US are shot by cops? What percentage of grandmothers are shot by cops? What percentage of babies are blown up?

What percentage is acceptable?

If it happens even once it is unacceptable. And it happens,,continually. Daily even.

[Suzanimal]

Not even for a day.

http://i.imgur.com/EMPuzPqm.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

Because while those things do happen, the accounts on here are largely anecdotal. It's just not as widespread as some of you would like it to be.

I can get behind things like legal weed, getting rid of mandatory minimum sentencing, and stopping militarization of police.

But the numbers just aren't there to support a systemic issue.

What percentage of dogs in the US are shot by cops? What percentage of grandmothers are shot by cops? What percentage of babies are blown up? If you actually look into it, like .001% usually.

Ah yes, we discussed this before.

You maintain that there are not enough granmothers being shot or babies blown up, to really assign any level of worry or warrant any response to the problem at this time.

Unfortunate that you think this way.

That said, the stories are not "anecdotal".

That would suggest they are hearsay, untrue or third or fourth or fifth hand information.

They are (at least the ones that I post) well sourced and documented.

[Ronin Truth]

MORE DONUTS!

[Anti Federalist]

What percentage is acceptable?

If it happens even once it is unacceptable. And it happens,,continually. Daily even.

He answered in another thread.


10k is worth discussing.

100k we have a serious problem we need to fix now, we should be up in arms.

A million, I'm with you brother lets take them all out by whatever means necessary.

Fair enough?

But I really think some of you need to admit there is a lot of Darwin in some of these police deaths...

[heavenlyboy34]

C'mon, AF! Just a little bit of murder, theft, rape, and assault? Pllllllzzzz? ;)

[69360]

What percentage is acceptable?

If it happens even once it is unacceptable. And it happens,,continually. Daily even.

That's just unrealistic. You can't prevent all wrongdoings.

[jmdrake]

Because while those things do happen, the accounts on here are largely anecdotal. It's just not as widespread as some of you would like it to be.

I can get behind things like legal weed, getting rid of mandatory minimum sentencing, and stopping militarization of police.

But the numbers just aren't there to support a systemic issue.

What percentage of dogs in the US are shot by cops? What percentage of grandmothers are shot by cops? What percentage of babies are blown up? If you actually look into it, like .001% usually.

How many people in the U.S. died from ebola? Here is the deal. Police shootings are at record highs while homicide rates are at record lows. That's a bad trend. Why are police killing more and more people when there is less ad less violent crime?

[heavenlyboy34]

That's just unrealistic. You can't prevent all wrongdoings.

No, but it's rational considering negative probability, relatively (that is, relative to no cops).

[roho76]

Get high, drunk, and take a nap? Sounds good to me.

[JK/SEA]

how long do i have to be a cop till i get my pension?

[69360]

How many people in the U.S. died from ebola? Here is the deal. Police shootings are at record highs while homicide rates are at record lows. That's a bad trend. Why are police killing more and more people when there is less ad less violent crime?

1000 last year out of a population of almost 320,000,000.

You are worried about that? Really?

[Suzanimal]

I seem to remember someone saying they did this last year. I think it was Matt Collins but I can't find the thread.

[UWDude]

If I believed in the justice system, and the laws of the country, I would love to be a cop for a lifetime.
But I wouldn't be a tool of this system for one day. No way.

[Anti Federalist]

1000 last year out of a population of almost 320,000,000.

You are worried about that? Really?

Speaking for myself, yes.

The trend is alarming.

[Anti Federalist]

1000 last year out of a population of almost 320,000,000.

You are worried about that? Really?

Speaking for myself, yes.

The trend is alarming.

[Suzanimal]

I seem to remember someone saying they did this last year. I think it was Matt Collins but I can't find the thread.

Found it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?446293-I-did-an-8-hour-police-ride-along-today-it-was-fascinating&highlight=police+ride

[UWDude]

What percentage of dogs in the US are shot by cops? What percentage of grandmothers are shot by cops? What percentage of babies are blown up? If you actually look into it, like .001% usually.

The issue is, what percentage of cops are convicted?
What percentage of dog killing are done by cops? (I'd guess 75 - 80% of all dogs killed by firearms, are killed by cops) How many convictions?
About 8% of homicides are done by cops. How many convictions?

And if cops routinely get away with murder, they are also getting away with every other crime less serious than murder. Then it becomes widespread, then it is not anecdotal.

How many millions of years of peoples lives have been wasted in prisons and jails because of lying cops?
How many billions of dollars have been forced at gunpoint from innocent people because of lying cops trying to fill quotas, or just trying to cover their ass when they realize they are wrong?
How many people were set up by cops, (ham sandwich ring a bell?)
1200 cases in Florida alone right here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?465768-Florida-police-engaged-in-sex-sting-entrapment-scam-report
And the old trusty way the government assassinates people: It calls them a sex offender, then you are sure to receive beatings in prison, and a shun from society for the rest of your life.

You start adding all this up, it is widespread, and nary a single peep from the justice system which supposedly applies the law evenly to them too.

[jmdrake]

1000 last year out of a population of almost 320,000,000.

You are worried about that? Really?

I see you ignored my point about ebola. You realize you can't argue against it? The issue isn't the raw numbers. It's the trend. By shear raw numbers you probably will never be killed by a criminal either.

Edit: Also I see you seem afraid to answer my question about the trend so I will ask it again. Why are police shootings going up when violent crime is going down? If police violence is a reaction to criminal violence then police violence should be going down.

[PaulConventionWV]

Ah....that's nice. Now why not make your job easier and don't harass people allegedly selling cigarettes on the sidewalk? How about making your job easier by not beating homeless white guess to death? How about making your job easier by refusing to serve no knock warrants? How about making your job easier by refusing to arrest anyone for non violent victimless crimes? If you cut down your job to just fixing bicycles, helping pregnant women, responding to violent crime (like robberies) and directing traffic nobody would complain. I know I wouldn't. Am I the only one who's come to an intersection where the power was out and so the traffic light wasn't working and saw a cop pull up and expect him to get out and direct traffic only to see him drive on through? Have you ever sat there long enough to see that people, even at a busy intersection, simply took turns and the traffic flowed better without the cop's intervention or the traffic light? Does anybody see where I'm going with this?

I'm way ahead of you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFOo3e0nxSI

As an aside note, the frame on the left is with traffic lights NOT working, the one on the right is with traffic lights working. The video doesn't show that.

[PaulConventionWV]

Because while those things do happen, the accounts on here are largely anecdotal. It's just not as widespread as some of you would like it to be.

I can get behind things like legal weed, getting rid of mandatory minimum sentencing, and stopping militarization of police.

But the numbers just aren't there to support a systemic issue.

What percentage of dogs in the US are shot by cops? What percentage of grandmothers are shot by cops? What percentage of babies are blown up? If you actually look into it, like .001% usually.

So, here are some numbers for you: 50 cops were killed by gunfire in 2014, which was a 56% increase over 2013. Since there are only about a million cops in the country, 50/1,000,000x100=.003%.

So, why are cops so worried if the gun deaths are statistically insignificant?

At what point do you begin to worry that it might happen to you? .03%? .3%? 3%?

To state it another way, that's 3/10,000, 3/1000, or 3/100. Would you feel comfortable knowing you had a 3/10,000 chance of dying every year? How about 3/1000 every year? 3/100 every year?

[jmdrake]

Speaking for myself, yes.

The trend is alarming.

And here is the trend. In the U.S. there were 14,196 murders in the U.S. This is down from a peak of 24,700 murders in 1991.

See: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

I don't have the total murder stats for the U.S. yet, but some cities are reporting drops in the murder rate (Birmingham Alabama, New York) while others have recorded increases (St. Louis, Chicago). You had already posted the thread of the record number of police killings for 2014 (1,000 and climbing). When you compare police killings to the overall murder rate, as opposed to the silly "population" number that 69360 was using, you have police making up a disproportionate number of killings. But again the problem is the trend. Should both trends continue unabated (which trends almost never do), eventually you reach a point where more citizens are killed by the police then are killed by each other. Now if every killing is justified that's okay. But with the clear subversion of justice we've seen in recent police killings where even George W. Bush doesn't understand the lack of an indictment, there's no way to know what percentage is really justified use of force. That's the problem.

[jmdrake]

I'm way ahead of you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFOo3e0nxSI

As an aside note, the frame on the left is with traffic lights NOT working, the one on the right is with traffic lights working. The video doesn't show that.

Wow!

[jmdrake]

So, here are some numbers for you: 50 cops were killed by gunfire in 2014, which was a 56% increase over 2013. Since there are only about a million cops in the country, 50/1,000,000x100=.003%.

So, why are cops so worried if the gun deaths are statistically insignificant?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PaulConventionWV again.

https://ghost19.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/pwned-funny2.jpg

[69360]

I see you ignored my point about ebola. You realize you can't argue against it? The issue isn't the raw numbers. It's the trend. By shear raw numbers you probably will never be killed by a criminal either.

Edit: Also I see you seem afraid to answer my question about the trend so I will ask it again. Why are police shootings going up when violent crime is going down? If police violence is a reaction to criminal violence then police violence should be going down.

Ebola is nothing more than media hype of something that is statistically irrelevant. Kind of like your chances of being killed by a cop. Your argument kind of backfired on you there.

The number of deaths from police is too small statistically to be any sort of trend, it's just static.

Some of you are acting more like bleeding heart liberals than rational liberterians who look at facts and numbers.

[69360]

So, here are some numbers for you: 50 cops were killed by gunfire in 2014, which was a 56% increase over 2013. Since there are only about a million cops in the country, 50/1,000,000x100=.003%.

So, why are cops so worried if the gun deaths are statistically insignificant?

At what point do you begin to worry that it might happen to you? .03%? .3%? 3%?

To state it another way, that's 3/10,000, 3/1000, or 3/100. Would you feel comfortable knowing you had a 3/10,000 chance of dying every year? How about 3/1000 every year? 3/100 every year?

Those NYC cops doing the back turning are blowing a random act just as out of proportion as those of you who seen to think we all will be shot by cops.

[jmdrake]

Those NYC cops doing the back turning are blowing a random act just as out of proportion as those of you who seen to think we all will be shot by cops.

Not wanting to see people get away with what is at the very least wreckless homicide caught on video != believing we will all be shot by cops. That said the deterrent to a police killing is the fact that the killer will almost certainly be captured and or killed. What is the deterrent to killing by police when the police don't even get indicted? :confused:

[William Tell]

how long do i have to be a cop till i get my pension?

I don't know. Congrats on 11,111 posts btw.:cool:

[TheTexan]

We have over 900,000 sworn officers in this country. There's only a relatively small amount of wrongful deaths each year.

Granted, 900,000 is more people than the active duty military of Russia, and nationwide we probably spend more on Police than China does on Military, but hey, that's ok. Because those 900,000 and ~$200 billion is for YOU. It's to protect YOU. It's to keep YOU safe.

Got it? Good.

Now, keep in mind that with the "small amount of deaths" each year, "policy was followed." No matter how heinous, how violent the act, or how innocent, undeserving the victim, just know... that policy was followed. Policy has always been followed, and always will be followed.

The only difference between the US police force, and the US military, is that the US military has rules of engagement.

[PaulConventionWV]

Ebola is nothing more than media hype of something that is statistically irrelevant. Kind of like your chances of being killed by a cop. Your argument kind of backfired on you there.

The number of deaths from police is too small statistically to be any sort of trend, it's just static.

Some of you are acting more like bleeding heart liberals than rational liberterians who look at facts and numbers.

So, to put perspective on the numbers, the odds of being killed by a cop simply refer to how likely it is that you will be killed by a cop at any time, anywhere you are, every single year.

Ok, but what about if you get stopped by the police? If you are actually having an interaction with the police, then suddenly the likelihood of this happening skyrocket. Again, what chances would you feel comfortable with every time you have an encounter? Keep in mind, though, most of these statistics are on an annual basis. This only has to happen ONCE for it to ruin or end your life. So if you take into account your entire lifespan and the context of actually being in a police encounter, then suddenly the likelihood of this happening to you becomes rather uncomfortable.

But wait, there's more:

This does not take into account all the things you have to do to ESCAPE being beaten or killed. The mere fact that cops have this kind of authority is the real problem because that means you have to submit to all kinds of invasions of privacy, violations of the law, and intimidation tactics that police will never suffer the consequences for because of their position of authority. Are you still comfortable with your odds of dying knowing that you will have to basically be their bitch in order to decrease your chances of dying? It still won't eliminate it because even fully compliant people will sometimes be killed or beaten. Are you fine with your chances of dying knowing that you also have to deal with the chance of being severely beaten and ending up in the hospital, stuck in a jail cell and forgotten, having your money/property seized indefinitely or being fined through the nose for something that really shouldn't even be a crime?

It's all about the numbers until it happens to you. Then you want to know if there will be any justice for you or someone you know being killed/robbed/beaten. No, there won't. Now how do you feel about that?

Then take into account the fact that you're paying for all this to happen.

[PaulConventionWV]

Those NYC cops doing the back turning are blowing a random act just as out of proportion as those of you who seen to think we all will be shot by cops.

So you're saying you wouldn't worry at all if you were one of them?

[kcchiefs6465]

I wouldn't.

[jmdrake]

Ebola is nothing more than media hype of something that is statistically irrelevant. Kind of like your chances of being killed by a cop. Your argument kind of backfired on you there.

The number of deaths from police is too small statistically to be any sort of trend, it's just static.

Some of you are acting more like bleeding heart liberals than rational liberterians who look at facts and numbers.

Ummm....I hate to break it to you, but comparing the number of cop deaths to the total population and turning around and saying "See! It doesn't matter" is neither rational nor libertarian. It's stupid. The thing about ebola was that it was contained. I'm glad reasonable precautions were taken. Anyway, since overall crime is low (only 14,000 murders total out of 320,000,000) then why have cops at all? I mean if killing doesn't matter as long as you have a large enough population.....

[DamianTV]

I'd be a cop for a day, but probably would not even make it a full 24 hours before being fired. The first thing I'd most likely start doing is arresting other Cops and Superiors that are in complete and total contempt of the Law, which could only result in drawing in ire of the entire police force immediately. Could give two shits less about what citizens do. "Mundanes" are the low hanging fruit many Cops go after in order to validate the existence of their own jobs.. Go for something a big higher up, the Big Criminals. CEOs. Politicians. Corrupt Cops. Etc.

I definitely would not last very long as a Cop.

[69360]

So you're saying you wouldn't worry at all if you were one of them?

First off, there isn't enough money in the world to get me to live in NYC, no less be a NYC cop.

But no, I wouldn't be worried at all. The chances of death in the line of duty for a cop are extremely small.


Ummm....I hate to break it to you, but comparing the number of cop deaths to the total population and turning around and saying "See! It doesn't matter" is neither rational nor libertarian. It's stupid. The thing about ebola was that it was contained. I'm glad reasonable precautions were taken. Anyway, since overall crime is low (only 14,000 murders total out of 320,000,000) then why have cops at all? I mean if killing doesn't matter as long as you have a large enough population.....

We need somebody to enforce the laws. No we don't need tanks and tactical gear to do that, but a civilized society does need enforcement.

Your argument isn't really valid anyway. Would crime go down if there were no cops? Sure, less people would get caught breaking existing laws, but actual crime would go up with no threat of repercussions.

All the police hate is misdirected. You should be hating those who make the laws.

I feel like a majority of cops would be perfectly happy with less restrictive laws so they could spend their time actually helping people in need. Ask most cops why they became cops and the most popular answer is to help people. They can't really do that when they have to bust them for having an ounce of pot or doing 65 in a 55.

[JK/SEA]

First off, there isn't enough money in the world to get me to live in NYC, no less be a NYC cop.

But no, I wouldn't be worried at all. The chances of death in the line of duty for a cop are extremely small.



We need somebody to enforce the laws. No we don't need tanks and tactical gear to do that, but a civilized society does need enforcement.

Your argument isn't really valid anyway. Would crime go down if there were no cops? Sure, less people would get caught breaking existing laws, but actual crime would go up with no threat of repercussions.

All the police hate is misdirected. You should be hating those who make the laws.

I feel like a majority of cops would be perfectly happy with less restrictive laws so they could spend their time actually helping people in need. Ask most cops why they became cops and the most popular answer is to help people. They can't really do that when they have to bust them for having an ounce of pot or doing 65 in a 55.

this post is irrelevant.

Cops have discretion. Its their choice. Its why we have babies and little girls, and innocent dogs, and people generally getting fucked over by the police for basically nothing...

DISCRETION....look it up.

copsuckers piss me off. Sheer blind obedience.

disgusting.

[69360]

this post is irrelevant.

Cops have discretion. Its their choice. Its why we have babies and little girls, and innocent dogs, and people generally getting fucked over by the police for basically nothing...

DISCRETION....look it up.

copsuckers piss me off. Sheer blind obedience.

disgusting.

So you noticed we have some bad cops here in the US.

We also have bad teachers, bad doctors, bad lawyers.

You are going to have a few bad ones in any profession.

Point is you all seem to be playing up some epidemic of police deaths and violence where statistically there isn't one.

Not even 1% of the population is killed injured or wronged by the police.

[jmdrake]

First off, there isn't enough money in the world to get me to live in NYC, no less be a NYC cop.

But no, I wouldn't be worried at all. The chances of death in the line of duty for a cop are extremely small.



We need somebody to enforce the laws. No we don't need tanks and tactical gear to do that, but a civilized society does need enforcement.

Your argument isn't really valid anyway. Would crime go down if there were no cops? Sure, less people would get caught breaking existing laws, but actual crime would go up with no threat of repercussions.

All the police hate is misdirected. You should be hating those who make the laws.

I feel like a majority of cops would be perfectly happy with less restrictive laws so they could spend their time actually helping people in need. Ask most cops why they became cops and the most popular answer is to help people. They can't really do that when they have to bust them for having an ounce of pot or doing 65 in a 55.

Actually nobody is making cops give someone a ticket for doing 65 in a 55. In fact the recent "work stoppage" in NYC proves that to be true. Same for busting people for pot. If cops stopped asking people "Do you mind if I search your car for drugs" who would file a complaint against them? Just because a stupid law is on the books doesn't mean a cop must enforce it. Yes there are incentives built into the system for cops to do write tickets and arrest people for minor things, but it's not like the cop will be arrested if he doesn't.

And I see the point I made about why do we need cops went right over your head. I'm not surprised. I'll break it down for you. If we go with your stupid logic that the number of killings by police don't matter simply because we have a large population, than the amount of crime doesn't matter either. Get rid of the police and see what happens. Wait a few years and if the crime reaches a level that fits whatever threshhold there is for "unacceptability" then bring back the cops. That said, if the money spent on policing and jails and courts and prisons was spent elsewhere, crime might actually drop. Want proof? Look here: http://www.today.com/news/millionaire-uses-fortune-help-kids-struggling-town-1C9373666

[jmdrake]

So you noticed we have some bad cops here in the US.

We also have bad teachers, bad doctors, bad lawyers.

You are going to have a few bad ones in any profession.

Point is you all seem to be playing up some epidemic of police deaths and violence where statistically there isn't one.

Not even 1% of the population is killed injured or wronged by the police.

Not even 1% of the population is killed by criminals either. That said, the issue isn't that there are bad apples. The issue is a lack of accountability for the bad apples. When a teacher does something criminal she gets arrested and if the evidence is strong tried and convicted. The problem with our current system is there's really no effective policing of the police.

[fisharmor]

So you noticed we have some bad cops here in the US.

We also have bad teachers, bad doctors, bad lawyers.
Teaching is a state-blessed profession, and without state credentials you can't do it.
Medicine is a state-blessed profession, and without state credentials you can't do it.
Lawyering is a state-blessed profession, and without state credentials you can't do it.

Policing is a state-blessed profession, and without state credentials you can't do it.

Are there bad Database Administrators out there? Sure, I've known one or two.
They lasted less than a year.
They also didn't rape, maim, rob, or kill anybody to get fired.


I feel like a majority of cops would be perfectly happy with less restrictive laws so they could spend their time actually helping people in need. Ask most cops why they became cops and the most popular answer is to help people. .

Oh, well that seals it! Since you feel a certain way, and since you've simply disregarded about 170 years of evidence and put the burden of proof back on the people who have already proved their point many times over, I guess I'm convinced!!!

[invisible]

In Baltimore? Hell no.

Here in Maine or maybe Alaska? I'd consider it.

This is actually an interesting thought. If all of you here on RPF who constantly bitch and complain about police, BECAME the police, you could fix what you have issues with from within. Cops have a huge amount of discretion in enforcement.

Wow, you sure volunteered awfully quickly! You just can't wait to get on the receiving side of the supplication, can you? I'm surprised DFF hasn't offered to be your partner yet.

[Crashland]

Once again, RPF lacks perspective. In here, most police officers can do no right, and the only thing they do is violate our rights day in and day out. The extreme one-sided bias here is just as illogical and irritating as it is when I see it on the other side like Hannity, King or Giuliani on FOX news.

[PaulConventionWV]

First off, there isn't enough money in the world to get me to live in NYC, no less be a NYC cop.

But no, I wouldn't be worried at all. The chances of death in the line of duty for a cop are extremely small.

This is true, but can you honestly say you wouldn't be looking over your shoulder, given the general culture of disdain that caused this crime to happen? This is what I'm talking about: the culture of fear that we are forced to live under and fund with our tax dollars. There are also a whole slew of factors I provided in post #45, which you should respond to if you wish to maintain intellectual honesty. It's not enough to talk about numbers. As jmdrake pointed out, it's neither rational nor libertarian to only talk about the numbers.


We need somebody to enforce the laws. No we don't need tanks and tactical gear to do that, but a civilized society does need enforcement.

Sure, but there's a big difference between having an elected sheriff who investigates crimes and a whole slew of police paid with your tax dollars that you did NOT elect and who have boundless authority over you. We do not need nearly as much as we have, and what we have now is a much, much larger drain on society than any criminals could ever be. They do not suffer consequences, so they commit their crimes over and over and over as opposed to a normal criminal who eventually gets caught. The vast majority of laws they actually enforce are victimless crimes, and what's more, you are being forced to pay for this drain on society.


Your argument isn't really valid anyway. Would crime go down if there were no cops? Sure, less people would get caught breaking existing laws, but actual crime would go up with no threat of repercussions.

The threat of repercussions doesn't really deter crime. There are at least a few instances where there were no cops in a geographical area and crime went down. People don't refrain from committing crimes because they're afraid of getting arrested. They refrain because society would find one way or another to punish them, with or without police. Once again, though, the vast majority of what police do these days is enforce victimless crimes. Without them, I think crime would go down because of the lack of fear surrounding things like the drug trade. Why would you kill someone over drugs if it was legal? If we got rid of police, it would decrease crime because people would no longer feel the need to keep things under wraps for fear of getting caught.


All the police hate is misdirected. You should be hating those who make the laws.

Nuremberg defense. The nazis were "just doing their jobs". At the same time, though, the fact that they were willing to take that job and commit these horrendous crimes on a daily basis and never face justice makes them far worse than the politicians in my eyes. They are both a problem, but without police, politicians would have no power, so that's why I direct my anger toward the police, and I think I am justified in doing that. Just think, if a police killed a family member of yours for no reason and got away with it, you would be angry at him, right? You wouldn't direct your anger at the politicians because despite the fact that the system ensured the cop would suffer no consequences, the cop still made a conscious decision to do what he did, and you and he both knew it was wrong.


I feel like a majority of cops would be perfectly happy with less restrictive laws so they could spend their time actually helping people in need. Ask most cops why they became cops and the most popular answer is to help people. They can't really do that when they have to bust them for having an ounce of pot or doing 65 in a 55.

I have a lot of doubt about that. I don't think most cops really care about helping people. That's the popular characterization of them, but that doesn't necessarily represent the truth. That may be the case if the cops actually knew they were going to face consequences for any wrong thing they did, but it certainly isn't the case now.

[Origanalist]

First off, there isn't enough money in the world to get me to live in NYC, no less be a NYC cop.

But no, I wouldn't be worried at all. The chances of death in the line of duty for a cop are extremely small.



We need somebody to enforce the laws. No we don't need tanks and tactical gear to do that, but a civilized society does need enforcement.

Your argument isn't really valid anyway. Would crime go down if there were no cops? Sure, less people would get caught breaking existing laws, but actual crime would go up with no threat of repercussions.

All the police hate is misdirected. You should be hating those who make the laws.

I feel like a majority of cops would be perfectly happy with less restrictive laws so they could spend their time actually helping people in need. Ask most cops why they became cops and the most popular answer is to help people. They can't really do that when they have to bust them for having an ounce of pot or doing 65 in a 55.

Would crime go down if there were no cops? Sure, less people would get caught breaking existing laws, but actual crime would go up with no threat of repercussions.

Do you have proof of this? Define what you mean by crime. Why do you think there would be no threat of repercussion?

[jmdrake]

Ah....that's nice. Now why not make your job easier and don't harass people allegedly selling cigarettes on the sidewalk? How about making your job easier by not beating homeless white guess to death? How about making your job easier by refusing to serve no knock warrants? How about making your job easier by refusing to arrest anyone for non violent victimless crimes? If you cut down your job to just fixing bicycles, helping pregnant women, responding to violent crime (like robberies) and directing traffic nobody would complain. I know I wouldn't. Am I the only one who's come to an intersection where the power was out and so the traffic light wasn't working and saw a cop pull up and expect him to get out and direct traffic only to see him drive on through? Have you ever sat there long enough to see that people, even at a busy intersection, simply took turns and the traffic flowed better without the cop's intervention or the traffic light? Does anybody see where I'm going with this?


Once again, RPF lacks perspective. In here, most police officers can do no right, and the only thing they do is violate our rights day in and day out. The extreme one-sided bias here is just as illogical and irritating as it is when I see it on the other side like Hannity, King or Giuliani on FOX news.

:rolleyes: Please see above in bold. Police can do and do do good. Then there's the "bad apples" that don't get punished. There's also enforcement of stupid laws. Recognizing all of that doesn't mean you don't think the police ever do anything good.

[Origanalist]

From above by PaulConventionWV


The threat of repercussions doesn't really deter crime. There are at least a few instances where there were no cops in a geographical area and crime went down. People don't refrain from committing crimes because they're afraid of getting arrested. They refrain because society would find one way or another to punish them, with or without police. Once again, though, the vast majority of what police do these days is enforce victimless crimes. Without them, I think crime would go down because of the lack of fear surrounding things like the drug trade. Why would you kill someone over drugs if it was legal? If we got rid of police, it would decrease crime because people would no longer feel the need to keep things under wraps for fear of getting caught.


+ rep

[PaulConventionWV]

So you noticed we have some bad cops here in the US.

We also have bad teachers, bad doctors, bad lawyers.

You are going to have a few bad ones in any profession.

The difference, of course, is that teachers, doctors, and lawyers do not have boundless authority to do whatever they want and they are not protected against consequences by the system they serve.


Point is you all seem to be playing up some epidemic of police deaths and violence where statistically there isn't one.

Not even 1% of the population is killed injured or wronged by the police.

Think about what you're saying, "not even 1%". What if it was .5%? Would you feel comfortable knowing that you had a 1/200 chance of being killed or wronged by the police for simply existing in the USA every single year? Never mind if you compound that chance year over year of your life. It only takes one time for it to ruin your life or end it. The possibly disastrous outcome of that probability makes it extremely discomforting. I wonder what chance the Jews had in their daily life of being wronged by the Gestapo? It was probably quite a bit less than 1%.

Also, you have to consider the fact that, when you do have an encounter with the police, your odds of being beaten or killed by the police increase dramatically. The odds of it happening simply for existing is not the only statistic to take into account. There's also the fear of interacting with the police because, when you do, you know that the odds of this happening to you skyrocket.

[PaulConventionWV]

Once again, RPF lacks perspective. In here, most police officers can do no right, and the only thing they do is violate our rights day in and day out. The extreme one-sided bias here is just as illogical and irritating as it is when I see it on the other side like Hannity, King or Giuliani on FOX news.

Because what you just said, albeit sarcastically, is actually not far from the truth, not nearly far enough from the truth to be relevant. They really DO violate our rights day in and day out. I mean, can you seriously argue otherwise?

[heavenlyboy34]

The difference, of course, is that teachers, doctors, and lawyers do not have boundless authority to do whatever they want and they are not protected against consequences by the system they serve.



Think about what you're saying, "not even 1%". What if it was .5%? Would you feel comfortable knowing that you had a 1/200 chance of being killed or wronged by the police for simply existing in the USA every single year? Never mind if you compound that chance year over year of your life. It only takes one time for it to ruin your life or end it. The possibly disastrous outcome of that probability makes it extremely discomforting. I wonder what chance the Jews had in their daily life of being wronged by the Gestapo? It was probably quite a bit less than 1%.

Also, you have to consider the fact that, when you do have an encounter with the police, your odds of being beaten or killed by the police increase dramatically. The odds of it happening simply for existing is not the only statistic to take into account. There's also the fear of interacting with the police because, when you do, you know that the odds of this happening to you skyrocket.
This^^ If my prof does me wrong, the worst that could happen is a poor grade or perhaps some academic discipline, depending. You get over that kind of thing and live to tell the tale. When a cop does one wrong, one ends up between unlawfully detained or harassed at best to dead at worst. That's an "oops" that you don't recover from well, if at all.

[69360]

I really enjoy the fallacy spread here that cops have impunity from prosecution and will never be punished.

You all really do believe that don't you?

If that is the case why aren't they shooting and robbing at will?

[presence]

What percentage of dogs in the US are shot by cops? What percentage of grandmothers are shot by cops? What percentage of babies are blown up? If you actually look into it, like .001% usually.

Every 98 minutes a dog is shot by police.

5366 dogs a year.

14.7 dogs daily.

seems like systemic issue to me

[presence]

I really enjoy the fallacy spread here that cops have impunity from prosecution and will never be punished.

You all really do believe that don't you?

If that is the case why aren't they shooting and robbing at will?

really?

[Origanalist]

I really enjoy the fallacy spread here that cops have impunity from prosecution and will never be punished.

You all really do believe that don't you?

If that is the case why aren't they shooting and robbing at will?

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/41/41be6a2789b0b4271aa263df740aebd671bc5a98edd26b4e4c f7e6401800acf4.jpg

[otherone]

Once again, RPF lacks perspective.

The Perspective Police have arrived.

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608048695286695299&pid=15.1&P=0

[69360]

Every 98 minutes a dog is shot by police.

5366 dogs a year.

14.7 dogs daily.

seems like systemic issue to me

Out of how many dogs in the country?

What percentage of those do you think were genuinely aggressive?


really?


Oh yeah really.

People continuously post about how the cops operate with impunity. That has been asserted over and over on RPF, even in this thread, with nothing but anecdotal evidence. Yes I'm sure you can find a news story on the internet about somebody who was wronged by the cops. But this is just not an issue for 99.99% of the population.

If you had cops shooting and robbing a significant percentage of the population, we'd have something to legitimately discuss.

[UWDude]

People continuously post about how the cops operate with impunity. That has been asserted over and over on RPF, even in this thread, with nothing but anecdotal evidence. Yes I'm sure you can find a news story on the internet about somebody who was wronged by the cops. But this is just not an issue for 99.99% of the population.

If you had cops shooting and robbing a significant percentage of the population, we'd have something to legitimately discuss.

Please find me a case where a cop has served more than three years for killing someone while in uniform.

[otherone]

If you had cops shooting and robbing a significant percentage of the population, we'd have something to legitimately discuss.

What percentage of the population may I shoot and rob before I'm to be held accountable?

[Anti Federalist]

I really enjoy the fallacy spread here that cops have impunity from prosecution and will never be punished.

You all really do believe that don't you?

If that is the case why aren't they shooting and robbing at will?

That would be funny if I knew you were only kidding.

[Anti Federalist]

I really enjoy the fallacy spread here that cops have impunity from prosecution and will never be punished.

You all really do believe that don't you?

If that is the case why aren't they shooting and robbing at will?

That would be funny if I knew you were only kidding.

[presence]

What percentage of those do you think were genuinely aggressive?I'm a residential contractor... I tear apart people's homes for a living. I've never met a dog I couldn't handle with my mouth and bare hands.









But this is just not an issue for 99.99% of the population.


two in five in the U.S. think police are corrupt
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-14/corruption-is-perceived-as-greater-where-income-gaps-are-big


More than two-thirds of non-whites feel the system favors whites over blacks.
http://dailysignal.com/2014/12/23/new-poll-americans-think-police-racism-problem/


http://images.dailykos.com/images/101536/large/image.jpg?1408714814



If you had cops shooting and robbing a significant percentage of the population, we'd have something to legitimately discuss.


http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BC089_FORFEI_G_20110821181222.jpg

[PaulConventionWV]

I really enjoy the fallacy spread here that cops have impunity from prosecution and will never be punished.

You all really do believe that don't you?

If that is the case why aren't they shooting and robbing at will?

Ummm... they are? Even thugs gotta take a break sometime.

Then again, I give you too much credit by actually answering your question. What a joke you are.

[69360]

What percentage of the population may I shoot and rob before I'm to be held accountable?

You personally should be accountable for anything you do. Every cop should be accountable for their actions.

It's getting really old day after day seeing posts about how we have some massive problem with the police in the US, when in fact you have more of a chance of death from an infected papercut than cop. I just made that up by the way, but it's likely true.

[PaulConventionWV]

Out of how many dogs in the country?

What percentage of those do you think were genuinely aggressive?




Oh yeah really.

People continuously post about how the cops operate with impunity. That has been asserted over and over on RPF, even in this thread, with nothing but anecdotal evidence. Yes I'm sure you can find a news story on the internet about somebody who was wronged by the cops. But this is just not an issue for 99.99% of the population.

If you had cops shooting and robbing a significant percentage of the population, we'd have something to legitimately discuss.

We can't just find A news story. We can literally find hundreds. Every day.

One in 300 million? Maybe not so much. One in 300million every day? Yeah, that's a problem.

[PaulConventionWV]

Out of how many dogs in the country?

What percentage of those do you think were genuinely aggressive?




Oh yeah really.

People continuously post about how the cops operate with impunity. That has been asserted over and over on RPF, even in this thread, with nothing but anecdotal evidence. Yes I'm sure you can find a news story on the internet about somebody who was wronged by the cops. But this is just not an issue for 99.99% of the population.

If you had cops shooting and robbing a significant percentage of the population, we'd have something to legitimately discuss.

Give us a number. What's a "significant" percentage to you?

[otherone]

Every cop should be accountable for their actions.



agreed

[PaulConventionWV]

You personally should be accountable for anything you do. Every cop should be accountable for their actions.

It's getting really old day after day seeing posts about how we have some massive problem with the police in the US, when in fact you have more of a chance of death from an infected papercut than cop. I just made that up by the way, but it's likely true.

Did you ever think that maybe the reason you're hearing about it day after day is because it IS a massive problem?

And no, I don't think your analogy is true. If you want to argue statistics, go get some actual statistics. Then consider year-over-year analysis, other things besides killing and beating, and the things you have to put up with to avoid those bad things. Then consider the fact that even a 1 in 1000 chance of dying every year is still a pretty big fucking chance when we're talking about dying. That doesn't even count the countless violations of civil rights we have to put up to avoid being beaten or killed. And once again, WE ARE PAYING FOR ALL THIS TO HAPPEN. HOW IS THIS NOT A PROBLEM?

[TomKat]

My favorite part of the video was at the end when youtube suggested one of my fav videos.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

[EBounding]

Point is you all seem to be playing up some epidemic of police deaths and violence where statistically there isn't one.

Not even 1% of the population is killed injured or wronged by the police.

I can't speak for this whole forum, but I think people are more concerned about the consequences police face (or lack thereof) for bad behavior. Do they face the same consequences as regular citizens for the same actions? It doesn't seem like they do.

[pcosmar]

How would you like to be an Authoritarian Enforcer for a day ?

Call it what it is.

Though we do seem to have a lot of Authoritarians here. :(

[Anti Federalist]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?465673-Horrifying-civil-liberties-predictions-for-2015

Of all those things listed in that post that happened in 2014, is nothing worthy of concern and warrant a response?

[Anti Federalist]

Call it what it is.

Though we do seem to have a lot of Authoritarians here. :(

Authoritarians and some who just don't care.

It's not "in their wheelhouse" so they really don't give a shit.

[Crashland]

We can't just find A news story. We can literally find hundreds. Every day.

One in 300 million? Maybe not so much. One in 300million every day? Yeah, that's a problem.

Having one police killing out of 300 million people happen every single day, then the chances of that happening to you would be 0.00012% chance per year, or 0.009% chance for your whole lifetime. That is less than the chances of being struck by lightning. Massive problem right there. In the US, you are 40x more likely to be murdered by someone who is not a police officer. And that is assuming that all police killings are murders.

[UWDude]

Having one police killing out of 300 million people happen every single day, then the chances of that happening to you would be 0.00012% chance per year, or 0.009% chance for your whole lifetime. That is less than the chances of being struck by lightning. Massive problem right there. In the US, you are 40x more likely to be murdered by someone who is not a police officer. And that is assuming that all police killings are murders.

and in 95% of the cases of murder, the murderer is brought to trial, and usually convicted to a long sentence... ...unless of course the cop is the murderer.

Still waiting for someone to show me a case where a cop has served more than three years for killing someone in uniform. I mean I know why, because on a case by case basis, every cop shooting is justified, legal, procedures were followed, blah blah blah.

[TruckinMike]

1000 last year out of a population of almost 320,000,000.

You are worried about that? Really?

A more telling number would be based on the number of mudanes that were killed who refused to grovel at law enforcement's feet. I wonder what that statistic would be. 1:2, 1:3, whats your best guess??

[phill4paul]

"Lies, damned lies and statistics."

All this folderol regarding the chances of being killed by a cop is just that...folderol. First, it is impossible to have a clear number because, even though required by Congress, there is not an accurate database regarding cop shooting. Second, it doesn't matter anyway.

Even one innocent death by cop is far too many. Period. It doesn't matter if it is one-in-one billion.

It is the same as with the death penalty....Blackstone's formulation sums it up...
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",

It is even better summed up by Ben Franklin....

It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished.... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever

Even one incident erodes the public security. And there have been far more than one instance of police abuse or citizen murder at their hands.

[osan]

Because while those things do happen, the accounts on here are largely anecdotal. It's just not as widespread as some of you would like it to be.

You should try to find a way to make money on your ability to concoct failed logic. You could buy Gates to be your shoeshine bitch.

Anecdotal <> invalid. "Not as widespread" is irrelevant. Murder isn't that widespread, either. Perhaps we ought to ignore murder laws as well.

I disagree that these things are not widespread, but just to show the weakness of your reasoning, we will assume what you claim is true. So what? Cops murders someone in cold blood and skates. This happens all the time, percentage-wise. The proportion of police called to account, found rightly guilty, and then justly punished is so small as to be negligible in the grander scheme of those things. You imply that this is not that big a deal. Wrong-0. It's a very big deal and this is bolstered by the fact that people are now starting to demonstrate, riot, and even summarily execute cops on the street.

People in general are blind idiots. Their flaws are so many, so profound, and often so disgusting as to leave me at a loss for words. But two things to which all but perhaps the dullest among the dull possess in keen-character and abundance are the senses of hypocrisy and justice. Oh yes, the latter gets distorted into all manner of nonsense such as the non-concept commonly called "social justice", but that aside, they understand by instinct the balancing of the scales. People understand justice and want it and know when it has been denied. They see failures to hold accountable on a daily basis. Police commit all manner of horrific crimes and are almost never held to account, much less to face real punishment. This pisses people off to no end and now, after perhaps 35 years of increased abuse by cops, people are deciding they have had enough.

Because of the rampant failure to hold police accountable, people are so pissed that THEIR senses of reason are now distorted and they now assume any police action is taken criminally. Ferguson is a textbook recent example. If the GJ report is to be believed, the cop fired justly in defense of his own life. The people of the community didn't believe the report... gee, I wonder why... We are lied to and abused almost universally and such a degree that some people are gearing up in their minds to take unequivocal action. We have seen this in Brooklyn with the execution of those two cops. Right or wrong, I understand completely why it happened and I blame everyone in so-called "government" for this. They enact unjust statute. They enforce it. They look the other way when someone of their ilk does wrong. There is no basis for disparaging what that man did in killing those two cops because police and everyone related to them in government have been abusing the people for a very long time and they have had enough.


But the numbers just aren't there to support a systemic issue.

You need to reconsider this. Once again, the "numbers" in absolute terms are irrelevant. The ratios, OTOH, are significant. If police were taken to the wood shed every time the committed their crimes, people would feel far less under a thumb.

You have a LONG way to go in your analytic skills. No offense, but they really suck.

[PaulConventionWV]

Having one police killing out of 300 million people happen every single day, then the chances of that happening to you would be 0.00012% chance per year, or 0.009% chance for your whole lifetime. That is less than the chances of being struck by lightning. Massive problem right there. In the US, you are 40x more likely to be murdered by someone who is not a police officer. And that is assuming that all police killings are murders.

Here's the problem with your analysis: Just because you don't die at the hands of police, that doesn't mean you weren't violated. The real problem is many times worse than that because of the fact that most people will do literally ANYTHING to avoid being beaten or killed by the police. Therefore, the number of violations we put up with are magnitudes greater than the number of actual police killings. All you have to do to be killed by police is show even the slightest disdain or not cooperate once. Does it not anger you that you have to do everything they say, no matter how ridiculous, or they can kill you and get away with it? Does it not disturb you that there are a million people in this nation who are virtually immune to justice?

Not to mention the fact that your chances of being killed by police go up dramatically when you actually do have an encounter since your numbers only represent the likelihood of being killed simply by existing in America. It would be incredibly stupid to leave out all of the other factors that go into this. We have to put up with invasions of privacy and theft every single fucking day in order to not be killed. So, while being killed by the police may not be a particularly worrying prospect to people in their daily lives, the fear of interacting with the police IS because 1) You have to put up with all kinds of injustice just to avoid the fate of being killed or beaten and 2) The likelihood of you being killed increases by magnitudes when you actually come into contact with police.

[jllundqu]

As someone who works with police on almost a daily basis... I will say this:

The collectivist notion that all 'cops' are the same is doing a disservice to an otherwise very valid argument. I would simply say that "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". Some places are worse than others. For example, I work with Phoenix Police and Maricopa Sheriff's Deputies all the time and see the good work that they do investigating crimes. Before your heads explode at the "good work" reference, I'm speaking mostly of the violent crimes sections of the respective departments.

I do feel that when there are instances of abuse of authorty that violate the god-given rights of man, they should be punished in the extreme. SWAT raids, killing dogs, choking folks to death for selling cigarettes, and things of the like... When these acts go unpunished, the abuse of authority grows and grows to the point where we find ourselves today. We DO have a nationwide-systemic issue of police brutality, militarization, and such. The fact that we can find news stories about such instances on a daily basis is prima facie evidence enough.

That being said, I do not lump all police in the same boat. Collectivism and all that. Of the 900,000 sworn officers, I'd guess only a small fraction are prone to abuse others in whatever form. If that 'small fraction' is 10,000, that is still a huge number and a serious problem worthy of serious debate. What we should also look at is the exponentially increasing number of laws police are being tasked with enforcing, thus increasing citizen/police encounters, leading to a much higher statistical probablility of abuse. This is not a left/right issue, either. The left wants their taxes enforced, and the right wants to be 'tough on crime.' Three felonies a day, right?

Police as a whole, are not the problem, only a symptom of an ever-increasing police-STATE, brought on by the leviathan government, which continues to grow and centralize our very existence.

I take the minarchist position that police serve a very valid and constitutional function if performed within due bounds. We can argue all day about what 'due bounds' are, but I digress. Suffice it to say that accountability for police and a drastic overhaul of what laws they should be tasked with enforcing should be our battles. Poo-pooing the police just for being 'police' serves no purpose. I do have a skewed bias, I suppose, but it is what it is. Just my perspective.

[Anti Federalist]

Police as a whole, are not the problem, only a symptom of an ever-increasing police-STATE, brought on by the leviathan government, which continues to grow and centralize our very existence.

If that statement is true, then have not police, as a whole, ipso facto demonstrated that they are "bad cops" by enforcing the laws of such a system?

[pcosmar]

Police as a whole, are not the problem, only a symptom of an ever-increasing police-STATE, brought on by the leviathan government, which continues to grow and centralize our very existence.


I disagree. A Police State is the logical and inevitable result of having Police (control enforcers)

But then I am not an Authoritarian. I do not believe that Free people need to be controlled.

[A Son of Liberty]

If that statement is true, then have not police, as a whole, ipso facto demonstrated that they are "bad cops" by enforcing the laws of such a system?

Of course, yet they are JUST AS GUILTY for enforcing those unjust laws as those who impose them.

"We hold these TRUTHS to be SELF-EVIDENT: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator by certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS..."

Without bestowing too much authority unto a document, it's a fair and accurate expression of the objective truth of natural law; as such, those who "enforce" laws which violate these self-evident, unalienable truths are guilty of violating NATURAL law, and WORSE YET, they're helping to perpetuate the condition under which free men must fear for their rights.

[PaulConventionWV]

As someone who works with police on almost a daily basis... I will say this:

The collectivist notion that all 'cops' are the same is doing a disservice to an otherwise very valid argument. I would simply say that "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". Some places are worse than others. For example, I work with Phoenix Police and Maricopa Sheriff's Deputies all the time and see the good work that they do investigating crimes. Before your heads explode at the "good work" reference, I'm speaking mostly of the violent crimes sections of the respective departments.

I do feel that when there are instances of abuse of authorty that violate the god-given rights of man, they should be punished in the extreme. SWAT raids, killing dogs, choking folks to death for selling cigarettes, and things of the like... When these acts go unpunished, the abuse of authority grows and grows to the point where we find ourselves today. We DO have a nationwide-systemic issue of police brutality, militarization, and such. The fact that we can find news stories about such instances on a daily basis is prima facie evidence enough.

That being said, I do not lump all police in the same boat. Collectivism and all that. Of the 900,000 sworn officers, I'd guess only a small fraction are prone to abuse others in whatever form. If that 'small fraction' is 10,000, that is still a huge number and a serious problem worthy of serious debate. What we should also look at is the exponentially increasing number of laws police are being tasked with enforcing, thus increasing citizen/police encounters, leading to a much higher statistical probablility of abuse. This is not a left/right issue, either. The left wants their taxes enforced, and the right wants to be 'tough on crime.' Three felonies a day, right?

Police as a whole, are not the problem, only a symptom of an ever-increasing police-STATE, brought on by the leviathan government, which continues to grow and centralize our very existence.

I take the minarchist position that police serve a very valid and constitutional function if performed within due bounds. We can argue all day about what 'due bounds' are, but I digress. Suffice it to say that accountability for police and a drastic overhaul of what laws they should be tasked with enforcing should be our battles. Poo-pooing the police just for being 'police' serves no purpose. I do have a skewed bias, I suppose, but it is what it is. Just my perspective.

I still maintain the position that cops are personally responsible for their actions, laws or no laws. I also maintain the position that, without police, the leviathan government wouldn't be able to do anything. So, given these two facts, that cops are personally responsible for their own actions and that the government would not be a threat to anyone without the police, it logically follows that police ARE the threat.

They ARE the government. They are the manifestation of what we see going on in our legislative houses and the only real-world way we actually have to deal with the government. That's bad enough to be raving mad by now, but also given the fact that cops are almost immune to justice and the fact that cops ignore the law literally all of the time, they are THE main problem we have with the state. Everyone here who has a problem with the state should also have a problem with police.

If you don't, then you must not really want to fix our government. Because if you don't think police violence is a "statistically significant problem", then you must also think that the government as a whole is not a problem because the government would be powerless without its army of enforcers.

[staerker]

Out of how many dogs in the country?

What percentage of those do you think were genuinely aggressive?

Aggressive dog = "No Trespassing." If you feel threatened by it, then stop trespassing.

[Crashland]

Here's the problem with your analysis: Just because you don't die at the hands of police, that doesn't mean you weren't violated. The real problem is many times worse than that because of the fact that most people will do literally ANYTHING to avoid being beaten or killed by the police. Therefore, the number of violations we put up with are magnitudes greater than the number of actual police killings. All you have to do to be killed by police is show even the slightest disdain or not cooperate once. Does it not anger you that you have to do everything they say, no matter how ridiculous, or they can kill you and get away with it? Does it not disturb you that there are a million people in this nation who are virtually immune to justice?

The thing that gets you most in danger is when you disagree with the officer and decide to resist arrest on the street instead of cooperating and exercising your right to a fair trial. Excessive force is a problem, but they *will* use some degree of force if you do not cooperate with your arrest, and any use of force is inherently dangerous.

Stop expecting every cop to be a goddamned libertarian. Most cops represent the will of the people just like the laws do. And most people are not libertarians.


Not to mention the fact that your chances of being killed by police go up dramatically when you actually do have an encounter since your numbers only represent the likelihood of being killed simply by existing in America. It would be incredibly stupid to leave out all of the other factors that go into this. We have to put up with invasions of privacy and theft every single fucking day in order to not be killed. So, while being killed by the police may not be a particularly worrying prospect to people in their daily lives, the fear of interacting with the police IS because 1) You have to put up with all kinds of injustice just to avoid the fate of being killed or beaten and 2) The likelihood of you being killed increases by magnitudes when you actually come into contact with police.

Yeah, just like your chances of getting murdered by a construction worker goes dramatically up when you have encounters with construction workers. Your argument doesn't fly.

There's a difference between not consenting to police action and physically resisting police action. If the police violate your rights you will have your day in court. If you stubbornly resist arrest because you're too busy whining about your rights being violated and can't see past the end of your nose, you are putting yourself in danger.

[tod evans]

How would you like to be a cop for a day ?

I won't ever "be a cop" and enforce another mans code(s).



I'm speaking mostly of the violent crimes sections of the respective departments.


Even this is a misnomer, "violent crimes" in kop speak includes the peaceful stoner with his hunting rifle hanging on the wall or the dude just served with a surprise divorce and eviction who exclaims "I'll kill the bitch." and countless other non-violent behaviors twisted by government to justify violent behavior by the kops.

Most of society isn't helpless so most of society is fully capable of enforcing the laws they find relevant without kops.

The moment government gets involved in writing or enforcing laws the citizen is removed from the equation.

Which of course leads back to "Everything government gets involved in it fucks up, everything!"


Most cops represent the will of the people just like the laws do.

Oh bullshit!

You must run in completely different circles than I do if you actually believe this.

[phill4paul]

The thing that gets you most in danger is when you disagree with the officer and decide to resist arrest on the street instead of cooperating and exercising your right to a fair trial. Excessive force is a problem, but they *will* use some degree of force if you do not cooperate with your arrest, and any use of force is inherently dangerous.

Stop expecting every cop to be a goddamned libertarian. Most cops represent the will of the people just like the laws do. And most people are not libertarians.



Yeah, just like your chances of getting murdered by a construction worker goes dramatically up when you have encounters with construction workers. Your argument doesn't fly.

There's a difference between not consenting to police action and physically resisting police action. If the police violate your rights you will have your day in court. If you stubbornly resist arrest because you're too busy whining about your rights being violated and can't see past the end of your nose, you are putting yourself in danger.

Quit boot licking....

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

[A Son of Liberty]

Quit boot licking....

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

+rep.

And what exactly the fuck is that moron talking about when he says something about your odds of being killed by a construction worker go dramatically up when you have encounters with construction workers? Is this supposed to pass for an actual coherent argument? I'm around construction workers every single day, yet somehow I manage to remain unmurdered, even while NONE of them threaten me with some trumped up bullshit of violating some farcical code, statue, or regulation. Funny, that.

This crashland fellow seems to be a mental defective.

[TheTexan]

fair trial

Hahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhaa...

Nice.

[A Son of Liberty]

There's a difference between not consenting to police action and physically resisting police action. If the police violate your rights you will have your day in court. If you stubbornly resist arrest because you're too busy whining about your rights being violated and can't see past the end of your nose, you are putting yourself in danger.

Ah, yes. Right to a trial. Right to have your property confiscated, your reputation thoroughly ruined, and your ability to earn an income demolished... AND IN EVERY SINGLE CASE WHICH DOES NOT INVOLVE THE VIOLATION OF THE LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY OF ANOTHER PERSON - WHICH IS TO SAY, THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY, over NOTHING.

WHAT A SWEET AND CHERISHED RIGHT THAT IS, "CRASHLAND".

How about you open your eyes to the world around you for God's Merciful sake?

[CaptUSA]

If you had cops shooting and robbing a significant percentage of the population, we'd have something to legitimately discuss.

Um. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world, by far. That is not even including how many citations and fines are levied.

Somebody's rounding these people up. You don't think these folks are walking into the prisons and opening their wallets voluntarily, do you?

It's only when you object to being robbed or thrown in prison that they kill you. Most of the citizenry just let them do it because they have been told the police have the "law" on their side.

[tod evans]

Quit boot licking....

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm


Um. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world, by far. That is not even including how many citations and fines are levied.

Somebody's rounding these people up. You don't think these folks are walking into the prisons and opening their wallets voluntarily, do you?

It's only when you object to being robbed or thrown in prison that they kill you. Most of the citizenry just let them do it because they have been told the police have the "law" on their side.

From Phils link;


As a practical matter one should try to avoid relying on the above in an actual confrontation with law enforcement agents, who are likely not to know or care about any of it. Some recent courts have refused to follow these principles, and grand juries, controlled by prosecutors, have refused to indict officers who killed innocent people claiming the subject "resisted" or "looked like he might have a gun". Once dedicated to "protect and serve", far too many law enforcement officers have become brutal, lawless occupying military forces.

[osan]

As someone who works with police on almost a daily basis... I will say this:

The collectivist notion that all 'cops' are the same is doing a disservice to an otherwise very valid argument.

I can agree with this, normatively speaking.


I would simply say that "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Power is purely neutral. It is the man who is corrupt. Never confuse the two.


Some places are worse than others. For example, I work with Phoenix Police and Maricopa Sheriff's Deputies all the time and see the good work that they do investigating crimes. Before your heads explode at the "good work" reference, I'm speaking mostly of the violent crimes sections of the respective departments.

Were their role restricted to investigations, I would have far less problem with them.


I do feel that when there are instances of abuse of authorty that violate the god-given rights of man, they should be punished in the extreme. SWAT raids, killing dogs, choking folks to death for selling cigarettes, and things of the like... When these acts go unpunished, the abuse of authority grows and grows to the point where we find ourselves today. We DO have a nationwide-systemic issue of police brutality, militarization, and such. The fact that we can find news stories about such instances on a daily basis is prima facie evidence enough.

We agree.


That being said, I do not lump all police in the same boat.

As men, I might agree with you, at least in some cases. But as police, I must diverge. The role of "policeman" needs to be abolished. The word itself is hopelessly tainted and become, in fact, vile. There are men I would call "good" and those "evil". But all such men become purveyors and committers of evil when they assume the mantle of "police". Good men become bad and bad become worse. There is no possibility of avoidance. The role is, by definition and practice, evil. We are not a nation of principled law, but of arbitrary statute. The statutes against the possession of guns and drugs, against prostitution, bans on so-called "hate speech", and so forth are not morally sound. They are arbitrary and demonstrably the products of political caprice of all persuasions. Police take an oath and are immediately directed to break it through the mandate that they enforce criminally immoral statutory fiat. There is no possible way to credibly justify this behavior and they engage in it willingly.

Consider the principle of law that states that intent is no excuse. The "good" men who choose to do the evil of policing may believe they are doing good and may intend on doing the same. This is irrelevant insofar as their guilt is concerned. The issue of good v. evil intent may serve as a mitigating or aggravating factor, but it does not absolve them of their accountability. Thereby are they unable to evade minimum punishment, in principle. That they almost universally manage to skate merely compounds their guilt and spreads it to a wider body of individuals.

Ask a cow whether the man wielding the slaughter hammer is good or evil. Anthropomorphizing, they would say it is irrelevant. The role he plays is one of evil against the race of cows, for I am certain in the bones of my bones that all cows cherish their lives as fully as we do ours.


Of the 900,000 sworn officers, I'd guess only a small fraction are prone to abuse others in whatever form.

This is demonstrably false on its face. Every cop abuses his fellows precisely because the abuse is a requirement of the job, all sworn oaths to the contrary notwithstanding.


If that 'small fraction' is 10,000, that is still a huge number and a serious problem worthy of serious debate. What we should also look at is the exponentially increasing number of laws police are being tasked with enforcing, thus increasing citizen/police encounters, leading to a much higher statistical probablility of abuse. This is not a left/right issue, either. The left wants their taxes enforced, and the right wants to be 'tough on crime.' Three felonies a day, right?

This lies at the heart of the issue. What is unclear to be is how it could be that you see it on the one hand and appear not to on the other.


Police as a whole, are not the problem, only a symptom of an ever-increasing police-STATE, brought on by the leviathan government, which continues to grow and centralize our very existence.

Police are precisely the problem. Bad men as police constitute a great compounding of the problem.

I applaud oath keepers, but must wonder to what degree they act to keep. If he sees a man and woman negotiating for acts of prostitution, will he arrest? Will he arrest if he finds a man in possession of a kilo of methamphetamine? If he is peeing on a tree in the park? Will an oathkeeper selectively maintain faith and break it when it suits him? Not saying they do or would, but genuinely wondering what the metes and bounds are and whether these are well-defined.



I take the minarchist position that police serve a very valid and constitutional function if performed within due bounds.

I would amend that to say that investigation and several other functions currently discharged by police are valid. But the role, taken as a gestalt, is prime and bald evil.


We can argue all day about what 'due bounds' are, but I digress.

I would call that no digression at all. It strikes to the very heart of the matter.


Suffice it to say that accountability for police and a drastic overhaul of what laws they should be tasked with enforcing should be our battles. Poo-pooing the police just for being 'police' serves no purpose. I do have a skewed bias, I suppose, but it is what it is. Just my perspective.

Once again, I believe I understand your deeper meaning but would advise you restructure the specifics of your forms of expression. Words matter. A lot. The most terrible and unintended results often arise when words are not chosen with supreme care.

[PaulConventionWV]

The thing that gets you most in danger is when you disagree with the officer and decide to resist arrest on the street instead of cooperating and exercising your right to a fair trial. Excessive force is a problem, but they *will* use some degree of force if you do not cooperate with your arrest, and any use of force is inherently dangerous.

I have the right not to be arrested in the first place. Don't kid yourself, we all know there's no such thing as a "fair trial" anymore. If there is, you certainly won't get it. You'll probably be charged with assault for breaking the officer's fist on your face.


Stop expecting every cop to be a goddamned libertarian. Most cops represent the will of the people just like the laws do. And most people are not libertarians.

I am under no such illusion that cops or the general population will ever be libertarian, but that's the problem. Cops represent the will of the people? You have got to be joking. 99% of what a cop does is harass people for victimless crimes, whether they actually committed them or not. If you don't think police ar a problem, then you don't think government is a problem, period.


Yeah, just like your chances of getting murdered by a construction worker goes dramatically up when you have encounters with construction workers. Your argument doesn't fly.

Yes, it does fly. Construction workers are not a problem because 1) they don't murder nearly as many people 2) they don't have unlimited authority over you 3) they aren't immune to justice and 4) they aren't paid with your tax dollars. It's statistically valid to say that your chances of being killed by a cop skyrocket when you actually have an encounter. Just because this applies to other people and professions as well, that doesn't make it invalid. It's a problem because 1) It invalidates your statistics about how likely you are to be killed by simply existing in America and 2) People will be more afraid to deal with cops because they know that a police encounter carries a much higher risk of being killed or injured than simply existing does.


There's a difference between not consenting to police action and physically resisting police action. If the police violate your rights you will have your day in court. If you stubbornly resist arrest because you're too busy whining about your rights being violated and can't see past the end of your nose, you are putting yourself in danger.

Do you really, honestly think that you will be made whole by the court system when something happens to you? The likelihood of that happening is about as great as the likelihood of a cop being sentenced to more than 3 years in prison for killing someone.

It is irrelevant how stupid people are for resisting. This doesn't mean they deserve to be killed and it also doesn't mean they ever should have been hassled in the first place. I have a right not to be arrested in the first place and being subjected to a bureaucratic nightmare while having an arrest put on my record despite whether I am acquitted or not. When are you going to realize that rights are important? People who insist on having their rights aren't whining. They just want to be able to avoid having to go to jail every time they insist on exercising their rights like any human being should be able to.

If it is really your opinion that injustices perpetrated by the police are not a big problem, then what are you even doing here? After all, police are the only real manifestation of the government system we at RPF oppose. Without the police, the government would have no power. So if you don't think police are a problem, then you must not think our government is a problem.

[PaulConventionWV]

+rep.

And what exactly the fuck is that moron talking about when he says something about your odds of being killed by a construction worker go dramatically up when you have encounters with construction workers? Is this supposed to pass for an actual coherent argument? I'm around construction workers every single day, yet somehow I manage to remain unmurdered, even while NONE of them threaten me with some trumped up bullshit of violating some farcical code, statue, or regulation. Funny, that.

This crashland fellow seems to be a mental defective.

The thing about your likelihood going up wit han actual encounter is that it's true of any profession... but what Crashland is leaving out is the fact that, while that's true, it doesn't invalidate the argument! Yes, your likelihood of being killed by a construction worker goes up with an encounter. So what! What does that have to do with police?

[phill4paul]

If it is really your opinion that injustices perpetrated by the police are not a big problem, then what are you even doing here? After all, police are the only real manifestation of the government system we at RPF oppose. Without the police, the government would have no power. So if you don't think police are a problem, then you must not think our government is a problem.

/thread. Police enforcement cannot be separated from authoritative government. The two are interminably intertwined.

[nobody's_hero]

1000 last year out of a population of almost 320,000,000.

You are worried about that? Really?

Indeed, and the whole of the German empire wasn't terribly concerned about the fate of one ghetto in Warsaw. As long as it doesn't happen to me, I should be good.
-----------------------

You ever hear the story of the sand dollars? I can't remember if this is a parable I heard in church when I was young, or something. Anyway —

A kid and his father are walking on the beach one day, and the kid notices that all these sand dollar critters got washed up on the shore. Literally hundreds and hundreds, perhaps thousands, and they can't survive outside of water or they'll dry up. So he starts picking them up and throwing them back.

The father looks at the kid and says, "well, son, you can only hope to save a few of them. I don't think it's gonna matter much."

The son looks at his father while he holds one of the living sand dollars up, and says, "it matters to this one." And tosses it back into the sea.

EDIT: Maybe it was starfish. Same principle though.

[phill4paul]

Indeed, and the whole of the German empire wasn't terribly concerned about the fate of one ghetto in Warsaw.

Just a few city block populated by lawbreakers. They really shouldn't have broken the law. /s

[Crashland]

+rep.

And what exactly the fuck is that moron talking about when he says something about your odds of being killed by a construction worker go dramatically up when you have encounters with construction workers? Is this supposed to pass for an actual coherent argument? I'm around construction workers every single day, yet somehow I manage to remain unmurdered, even while NONE of them threaten me with some trumped up bullshit of violating some farcical code, statue, or regulation. Funny, that.

This crashland fellow seems to be a mental defective.

Nice to meet you, too, fucker.

[Crashland]

+rep.

And what exactly the fuck is that moron talking about when he says something about your odds of being killed by a construction worker go dramatically up when you have encounters with construction workers? Is this supposed to pass for an actual coherent argument? I'm around construction workers every single day, yet somehow I manage to remain unmurdered, even while NONE of them threaten me with some trumped up bullshit of violating some farcical code, statue, or regulation. Funny, that.

This crashland fellow seems to be a mental defective.

You completely missed the point. I was illustrating how nonsensical the argument was, that the chances of getting murdered by police goes up drastically when you have encounters with police, as if that somehow proves something.

[GunnyFreedom]

I really enjoy the fallacy spread here that cops have impunity from prosecution and will never be punished.

You all really do believe that don't you?

If that is the case why aren't they shooting and robbing at will?

LMAO! They are shooting and robbing at will. That's. The. Point.

[GunnyFreedom]

You completely missed the point. I was illustrating how nonsensical the argument was, that the chances of getting murdered by police goes up drastically when you have encounters with police, as if that somehow proves something.

De Nile is a river in Egypt. I am unsure as to why you are swimming in it.

[presence]

http://i.imgur.com/cm0K8Jg.jpg

[PaulConventionWV]

You completely missed the point. I was illustrating how nonsensical the argument was, that the chances of getting murdered by police goes up drastically when you have encounters with police, as if that somehow proves something.

It proves that having an encounter with police is far more dangerous than your 'simply existing' statistics would indicate because you know that, when you are stopped by police, your chances of dying are vastly higher than those statistics would suggest. Oh, and not to mention it's virtually guaranteed that you will have to put up with your rights being violated in order to avoid being killed or maimed.

[Cissy]

http://i638.photobucket.com/albums/uu106/harkiri/do-not-want-dog.jpg

[fisharmor]

Having one police killing out of 300 million people happen every single day, then the chances of that happening to you would be 0.00012% chance per year, or 0.009% chance for your whole lifetime. That is less than the chances of being struck by lightning. Massive problem right there. In the US, you are 40x more likely to be murdered by someone who is not a police officer. And that is assuming that all police killings are murders.

The numbers you chose show that you have a fundamental lack of sympathy for fellow men.

If you did have a basic regard for human life, you would see that even if it's a 1/300,000,000 chance, it is entirely preventable.
Even if one person dies unnecessarily at the hands of police - and remember, we can find new articles about this every week - somebody is still dying, and from something we can actually do something about.

You're not just taking the position that you don't care that these people are dying - you're defending it. There is something about police you value more than you value the lives of fellow human beings.

The rest of us have all asked ourselves already, what is it I'm supposed to value about cops more than human life?

We've all come up with the same answer: nothing. There is nothing that cops do - not one thing - that we value more than a single one of those human lives.

What is it, exactly, that these skinhead thugs do that you value more than human life?

[PaulConventionWV]

The numbers you chose show that you have a fundamental lack of sympathy for fellow men.

If you did have a basic regard for human life, you would see that even if it's a 1/300,000,000 chance, it is entirely preventable.
Even if one person dies unnecessarily at the hands of police - and remember, we can find new articles about this every week - somebody is still dying, and from something we can actually do something about.

You're not just taking the position that you don't care that these people are dying - you're defending it. There is something about police you value more than you value the lives of fellow human beings.

The rest of us have all asked ourselves already, what is it I'm supposed to value about cops more than human life?

We've all come up with the same answer: nothing. There is nothing that cops do - not one thing - that we value more than a single one of those human lives.

What is it, exactly, that these skinhead thugs do that you value more than human life?

Yes, thank you for saying this. I have a hard time letting statistics be taken out of context, but it is important to note that there is a far more fundamental reason to care about police violence. It has to do with the notion of justice, that we should not simply allow the criminals in the police force to continue being criminals and never suffer for their blatant injustices. It has to do with knowing how this affects you. Having a million people who have absolute authority over you is never good for freedom or liberty. We all know it's not uncommon to be encountered or stopped by the police, and when that happens, it is almost guaranteed that your rights will be violated in some way.

[PaulConventionWV]

Having one police killing out of 300 million people happen every single day, then the chances of that happening to you would be 0.00012% chance per year, or 0.009% chance for your whole lifetime. That is less than the chances of being struck by lightning. Massive problem right there. In the US, you are 40x more likely to be murdered by someone who is not a police officer. And that is assuming that all police killings are murders.

I should also point out that there is definitely more than 1 police killing every day. At least 1000 people were killed by police in 2014. That's 2.74 people per day... and that's just the ones we know about, which is probably not reliable since there is no actual database that keeps record of this. The problem, it seems, is bigger than you are suggesting even on the marginal scale with which you present it.

[Crashland]

The numbers you chose show that you have a fundamental lack of sympathy for fellow men.

If you did have a basic regard for human life, you would see that even if it's a 1/300,000,000 chance, it is entirely preventable.
Even if one person dies unnecessarily at the hands of police - and remember, we can find new articles about this every week - somebody is still dying, and from something we can actually do something about.

You're not just taking the position that you don't care that these people are dying - you're defending it. There is something about police you value more than you value the lives of fellow human beings.

The rest of us have all asked ourselves already, what is it I'm supposed to value about cops more than human life?

We've all come up with the same answer: nothing. There is nothing that cops do - not one thing - that we value more than a single one of those human lives.

What is it, exactly, that these skinhead thugs do that you value more than human life?

Sounds like Obama's justification for Obamacare. If we can just save one innocent person, that justifies lawlessness.

It's not a matter of not caring about the the issue. I care about it and acknowledge it. But I put it in perspective. People here seem to think that not hating cops and appreciating the good things they do means you're a "copsucker" and love tyranny.

[GunnyFreedom]

Sounds like Obama's justification for Obamacare. If we can just save one innocent person, that justifies lawlessness.

It's not a matter of not caring about the the issue. I care about it and acknowledge it. But I put it in perspective. People here seem to think that not hating cops and appreciating the good things they do means you're a "copsucker" and love tyranny.

No. Several of the people you are referring to will share the good and the bad alike. What makes you a copsucker, is your attempts to excuse and justify all the rapes robberies and murders these heathen thug scumbag psychopaths do every day.

[TheTexan]

Sounds like Obama's justification for Obamacare. If we can just save one innocent person, that justifies lawlessness.

Yup. We wouldn't want lawlessness. People running around killing and beating without repercussions or accountability. Fortunately, we do have laws, and they are enforced.

Thanks Crashland, for bringing logical consistency to this argument.

[Crashland]

I have the right not to be arrested in the first place. Don't kid yourself, we all know there's no such thing as a "fair trial" anymore. If there is, you certainly won't get it. You'll probably be charged with assault for breaking the officer's fist on your face.

Do you really, honestly think that you will be made whole by the court system when something happens to you? The likelihood of that happening is about as great as the likelihood of a cop being sentenced to more than 3 years in prison for killing someone.

If you think the entire justice system is rigged against you, then there's no helping you. I don't agree.


I am under no such illusion that cops or the general population will ever be libertarian, but that's the problem. Cops represent the will of the people? You have got to be joking. 99% of what a cop does is harass people for victimless crimes, whether they actually committed them or not. If you don't think police ar a problem, then you don't think government is a problem, period.

The laws are passed by elected representatives. If the laws favor arresting people for victimless crimes for no good reason, then yes, unfortunately, that is the will of the people.


Yes, it does fly. Construction workers are not a problem because 1) they don't murder nearly as many people 2) they don't have unlimited authority over you 3) they aren't immune to justice and 4) they aren't paid with your tax dollars. It's statistically valid to say that your chances of being killed by a cop skyrocket when you actually have an encounter. Just because this applies to other people and professions as well, that doesn't make it invalid. It's a problem because 1) It invalidates your statistics about how likely you are to be killed by simply existing in America and 2) People will be more afraid to deal with cops because they know that a police encounter carries a much higher risk of being killed or injured than simply existing does.

I would very much like to see a statistic that shows how many total police encounters there are versus how many people are injured or killed in those police encounters.


It is irrelevant how stupid people are for resisting. This doesn't mean they deserve to be killed and it also doesn't mean they ever should have been hassled in the first place. I have a right not to be arrested in the first place and being subjected to a bureaucratic nightmare while having an arrest put on my record despite whether I am acquitted or not. When are you going to realize that rights are important? People who insist on having their rights aren't whining. They just want to be able to avoid having to go to jail every time they insist on exercising their rights like any human being should be able to.

I agree, but the place to fight that battle is not with the police officer. The place to fight that battle is in the courts, and in convincing your fellow citizens to change the laws.


If it is really your opinion that injustices perpetrated by the police are not a big problem, then what are you even doing here? After all, police are the only real manifestation of the government system we at RPF oppose. Without the police, the government would have no power. So if you don't think police are a problem, then you must not think our government is a problem.

No, that doesn't follow. The police have problems, but not nearly to the extent that some of you here would have us believe. The police are not the root of the problem. The root of the problem is bad laws.

[JK/SEA]

Sounds like Obama's justification for Obamacare. If we can just save one innocent person, that justifies lawlessness.

It's not a matter of not caring about the the issue. I care about it and acknowledge it. But I put it in perspective. People here seem to think that not hating cops and appreciating the good things they do means you're a "copsucker" and love tyranny.


hating cops?...nah...i don't hate 'them', how could i?...i don't know any on a personal basis, so you can jam that 'hate' mantra upper U.S.A....thats italian for up your ass.

[Crashland]

No. Several of the people you are referring to will share the good and the bad alike. What makes you a copsucker, is your attempts to excuse and justify all the rapes robberies and murders these heathen thug scumbag psychopaths do every day.

You have got to be kidding. No one has attempted to justify rapes robberies and murders.

[Anti Federalist]

No, that doesn't follow. The police have problems, but not nearly to the extent that some of you here would have us believe. The police are not the root of the problem. The root of the problem is bad laws.

The "law" is just words on paper, with no more meaning or force than the Bill of Rights has against our oppressors.

It only has meaning, it can only ruin your life, when enforced.

[Crashland]

The "law" is just words on paper, with no more meaning or force than the Bill of Rights has against our oppressors.

It only has meaning, it can only ruin your life, when enforced.

All laws should be enforced. If it should not be enforced, then it should not be a law.

[JK/SEA]

You have got to be kidding. No one has attempted to justify rapes robberies and murders.

you hate RPF members.

[Crashland]

you hate RPF members.

Clearly, because I go around calling them heathen thug scumbag psychopathic rapists and murderers all the time don't I. Well, I did call one of them a f***er in this thread, but that is an exception.

[TheTexan]

All laws should be enforced. If it should not be enforced, then it should not be a law.

Yup, because if laws weren't enforced... there would be anarchy. There would be gangs roaming the streets, free to beat & murder whomever they choose.

[Anti Federalist]

All laws should be enforced. If it should not be enforced, then it should not be a law.

Why do you want to go to jail?

[kcchiefs6465]

Sounds like Obama's justification for Obamacare. If we can just save one innocent person, that justifies lawlessness.

It's not a matter of not caring about the the issue. I care about it and acknowledge it. But I put it in perspective. People here seem to think that not hating cops and appreciating the good things they do means you're a "copsucker" and love tyranny.
They are the definition of lawlessness. They do things that if I did I would rightfully be incarcerated for.

I am unfazed by the good they may do. The world isn't black and white. It's not as if they are villains from cliche 'B' movies rubbing their hands together contemplating whose life they can impede on a given day. That being said, regardless they do impede many lives for crimes for which there is no victim and extortion schemes. What good they do is outweighed by the plethora of immoral things taking place. From their method of payment, to their writing of tickets, to their abduction of drug possessing persons.

For some anecdotal evidence, I saw a cop take his lunch out and offer some to a stray cat. I was amazed as he was a particular piece of shit within the neighborhood (not the cat, the cop... the cat was pretty cool, actually). There is humanity within everyone. I don't get a salary to stop and help someone stranded. I don't get a salary to intervene when someone is getting their head booted off their shoulders. It's called doing the right thing. I'm sure Hitler didn't come home and beat his wife... though I suppose he could have (point being not everyone doing immoral things are front to back, assholes).

Once when I was stranded on the highway a police officer stopped. He searched my vehicle and left, the hero. Oh, and one bought me Taco Bell once... even after I told her I hate the police and didn't want to talk to her because of the simple fact she was a police officer. She was cool. They fired her later for sexual activity in a cop car with the Chief of Police... they were transferring someone out of town and when the lawyer for the defendant subpoenaed the tape they saw them messing around.

[tod evans]

All laws should be enforced. If it should not be enforced, then it should not be a law.

Do you have even a remote idea of which you speak?

There's not one kop or DA who has the knowledge or ability to read and comprehend the legislation on the books yet our "elected officials" write thousands of pages of new edicts daily.

"Enforced" falls to enforcers and I can assure you that you and I and everyone on this board has broken enough of these edicts today that were they to be enforced we'd all have felony convictions.

There's a vast difference between having an opinion and possessing actual knowledge....

[Crashland]

Yup, because if laws weren't enforced... there would be anarchy. There would be gangs roaming the streets, free to beat & murder whomever they choose.

No, laws should be enforced because they are a form of social contract. Civilized societies respect things like that.

[Crashland]

Do you have even a remote idea of which you speak?

There's not one kop or DA who has the knowledge or ability to read and comprehend the legislation on the books yet our "elected officials" write thousands of pages of new edicts daily.

"Enforced" falls to enforcers and I can assure you that you and I and everyone on this board has broken enough of these edicts today that were they to be enforced we'd all have felony convictions.

There's a vast difference between having an opinion and possessing actual knowledge....

Did you read the second sentence? I said, "If it should not be enforced, then it should not be a law." Hello?

[JK/SEA]

Clearly, because I go around calling them heathen thug scumbag psychopathic rapists and murderers all the time don't I. Well, I did call one of them a f***er in this thread, but that is an exception.

i rest my case..

so...that makes you a >................< ?

[TheTexan]

No, laws should be enforced because they are a form of social contract. Civilized societies respect things like that.

Yup. And it's a good thing that laws are enforced! Or people would be getting away with murder!

[Anti Federalist]

Did you read the second sentence? I said, "If it should not be enforced, then it should not be a law." Hello?

But they are...laws that is.

You define an evil system of tyranny, where millions of unjust laws are arbitrarily enforced against the people daily.

So many laws that no one person could know, understand and comply with every single one.

Police, collectively, are guilty of enforcing this system.

Thus, there are no "good cops".

[JK/SEA]

Did you read the second sentence? I said, "If it should not be enforced, then it should not be a law." Hello?

why do you hate us?

[Crashland]

They are the definition of lawlessness. They do things that if I did I would rightfully be incarcerated for.

I am unfazed by the good they may do. The world isn't black and white. It's not as if they are villains from cliche 'B' movies rubbing their hands together contemplating whose life they can impede on a given day. That being said, regardless they do impede many lives for crimes for which there is no victim and extortion schemes. What good they do is outweighed by the plethora of immoral things taking place. From their method of payment, to their writing of tickets, to their abduction of drug possessing persons.

Yes, the world is not black and white. That is why I refrain from using terminology like "they do things that I would rightfully be incarcerated for", or otherwise painting the police with a broad brush.
Enforcing bad laws is no more evil than the people who write those same laws, or the people who vote for those laws.

[JK/SEA]

Yes, the world is not black and white. That is why I refrain from using terminology like "they do things that I would rightfully be incarcerated for", or otherwise painting the police with a broad brush.
Enforcing bad laws is no more evil than the people who write those same laws, or the people who vote for those laws.

but why did you say we hate the police?

i think its because you hate us.

[Crashland]

Yup. And it's a good thing that laws are enforced! Or people would be getting away with murder!

No, it's a good thing that laws are enforced because laws are a form of social contract, and civilized societies respect things like that...

[GunnyFreedom]

You have got to be kidding. No one has attempted to justify rapes robberies and murders.

I am not kidding. People justify excuse exhonerate or overlook murders and rapes and assaults and robberies by cops every single day of every single year, some of whom even hang out on this forum, God alone knows why. I am not kidding, not even a little bit.

[JK/SEA]

No, it's a good thing that laws are enforced because laws are a form of social contract, and civilized societies respect things like that...


but you're saying the police don't have to be civilized.

explain.

[Crashland]

but why did you say we hate the police?

i think its because you hate us.

If you are trying to compare my attitude towards RPF members, with RPF members attitude towards police, it's not working. This entire forum is a treasure trove for sweeping hateful or generalized remarks towards police. Good luck finding all of my nonstop ad hominem posts towards other RPF members calling them rapists, murderers, psychopaths, morons, heathen, ....

[Crashland]

but you're saying the police don't have to be civilized.

explain.

Where did I say that? Please quote

[TheTexan]

No, it's a good thing that laws are enforced because laws are a form of social contract, and civilized societies respect things like that...

Oh, now I think we're on the page. It's a good thing that laws are enforced because that's the contract... the fact that people murder others in broad daylight and get away with it, isn't a problem, because that's the contract.

Neat! If only all contracts worked that way!

[JK/SEA]

If you are trying to compare my attitude towards RPF members, with RPF members attitude towards police, it's not working. This entire forum is a treasure trove for sweeping hateful or generalized remarks towards police. Good luck finding all of my nonstop ad hominem posts towards other RPF members calling them rapists, murderers, psychopaths, morons, heathen, ....


oh. i do think its working. I can damn near hear you biting the carpet...:D

[pcosmar]

No, it's a good thing that laws are enforced because laws are a form of social contract, and civilized societies respect things like that...

Law was enforced before the invention of police. Law was enforced by the people affected.
People hunted down thieves and murders. People enforced laws.

The massive amount of laws on the books today were created by Authoritarians, after the creation of police. Who were also created by Authoritarians,, to enforce laws that common folks would not enforce. (like prohibition)

[Crashland]

oh. i do think its working. I can damn near hear you biting the carpet...:D

Damn you have excellent hearing.

[JK/SEA]

Damn you have excellent hearing.

actually i'm deaf *%!! but thanks for the compliment.

[JK/SEA]

Where did I say that? Please quote

most in here can read between the lines...so...hey, lifes a bitch.

[Crashland]

Law was enforced before the invention of police. Law was enforced by the people affected.
People hunted down thieves and murders. People enforced laws.

The massive amount of laws on the books today were created by Authoritarians, after the creation of police. Who were also created by Authoritarians,, to enforce laws that common folks would not enforce. (like prohibition)

Whether there is a practical need for state-paid police is an interesting topic, but that's not as much within the scope of what I am referring to. Personally I would rather pay someone else to enforce the law as a professional job than to bring that entire responsibility upon myself, as I would rather be able to concentrate fully on working towards my own career goals...but again I'm not really arguing that here. I would agree that laws that common folks would not enforce, should probably not be laws.

[kcchiefs6465]

Yes, the world is not black and white. That is why I refrain from using terminology like "they do things that I would rightfully be incarcerated for", or otherwise painting the police with a broad brush.
Enforcing bad laws is no more evil than the people who write those same laws,
Very true. My opinion of politicians is equally low.



...or the people who vote for those laws.
Arguably so.

[Anti Federalist]

Enforcing bad laws is no more evil than the people who write those same laws, or the people who vote for those laws.
Obama, Chuck Schumer, my neighbor and John Boehner are not going to kick in my door at oh-dark-thirty, shoot my dog, trash my house, terrorize my family and grenade my kids any time soon.

[heavenlyboy34]

No, laws should be enforced because they are a form of social contract. Civilized societies respect things like that.

"Social Contract" is a tacit agreement. Not valid. Societies are organized just fine by Spontaneous Order, as has been well demonstrated by many people, such as Butler Schaffer.

[PaulConventionWV]

Sounds like Obama's justification for Obamacare. If we can just save one innocent person, that justifies lawlessness.

You've got that backwards. We're advocating the law. You're advocating lawlessness. You're operating under the ridiculous assumption that we need all of the police we have now in order to prevent disorder. A very tiny fraction of accountable and genuinely helpful officers would do far more good than the goon force we currently have.


It's not a matter of not caring about the the issue. I care about it and acknowledge it. But I put it in perspective. People here seem to think that not hating cops and appreciating the good things they do means you're a "copsucker" and love tyranny.

What are these perceived "good things" they supposedly do?

As I've mentioned before, the threat of consequences does not deter crime. Anyone who wants to commit a crime can justify a reason for thinking they might be able to get away with it... or they just don't care. The others don't commit crimes, not because they're afraid of being caught by the police, but because society will find one way or another to punish them, with or without police.

In fact, police probably cause far more violence than they prevent. Think about it: why would you kill someone over drugs if drugs were legal? The fact that police are going after gangs for drug violations just means there will be more gang violence to avoid being ratted out their drug smuggling operations. I am dead serious when I say that crime would almost certainly go down if we eliminated all police tomorrow. Keep in mind, I'm not advocating that, but it would do more good than harm if that were to happen. All we need is an elected sheriff to help investigate crimes and serve the community. We don't need armies of unelected and unaccountable officers to control us. That does a lot more harm than good to society.

[otherone]

Obama, Chuck Schumer, my neighbor and John Boehner are not going to kick in my door at oh-dark-thirty, shoot my dog, trash my house, terrorize my family and grenade my kids any time soon.


I would rather pay someone else to enforce the law as a professional job than to bring that entire responsibility upon myself, as I would rather be able to concentrate fully on working towards my own career goals..


Fuck your dog, house, family, and kids...Crashland has career goals.

[Crashland]

Fuck your dog, house, family, and kids...Crashland has career goals.

Being willing to pay for law enforcement does not equal endorsing criminal behavior by said law enforcement.

[Crashland]

"Social Contract" is a tacit agreement. Not valid. Societies are organized just fine by Spontaneous Order, as has been well demonstrated by many people, such as Butler Schaffer.

I suppose that would make the constitution a non-valid tacit agreement too. But I'm not here to debate anarchism

[JK/SEA]

Being willing to pay for law enforcement does not equal endorsing criminal behavior by said law enforcement.


you sound like an authority on Law Enforcement. Can you make the dog killings stop at least?...please?

[tod evans]

Did you read the second sentence? I said, "If it should not be enforced, then it should not be a law." Hello?

Clear and concise articulation is really important...Hello?

When your second sentence contradicts the first glaringly then maybe your thoughts need coalesced before printing..Hello?

[TheTexan]

"Social Contract" is a tacit agreement. Not valid.

Not valid my ass. My army of police soldiers says otherwise.

Don't like it? Do something about it.

That's what I thought.

[tod evans]

Being willing to pay for law enforcement does not equal endorsing criminal behavior by said law enforcement.

Actually it does in a strictly legal sense.

Are you familiar with a "tacit agreement"?

[otherone]

Not valid my ass. My army of police soldiers says otherwise.

Don't like it? Do something about it.

That's what I thought.

Speak for yourself ...I voted.
I just saved all your dogs, bitches.
you're welcome.

[Crashland]

You've got that backwards. We're advocating the law. You're advocating lawlessness. You're operating under the ridiculous assumption that we need all of the police we have now in order to prevent disorder. A very tiny fraction of accountable and genuinely helpful officers would do far more good than the goon force we currently have.

No, I am not operating under that ridiculous assumption. I support reducing the police force.


What are these perceived "good things" they supposedly do?
Arresting criminals and investigating crime scenes.


As I've mentioned before, the threat of consequences does not deter crime. Anyone who wants to commit a crime can justify a reason for thinking they might be able to get away with it... or they just don't care. The others don't commit crimes, not because they're afraid of being caught by the police, but because society will find one way or another to punish them, with or without police.
I haven't advocated using police as a deterrent. Deterrence does come into play but I wouldn't give a whole lot of weight to it either.


In fact, police probably cause far more violence than they prevent. Think about it: why would you kill someone over drugs if drugs were legal? The fact that police are going after gangs for drug violations just means there will be more gang violence to avoid being ratted out their drug smuggling operations. I am dead serious when I say that crime would almost certainly go down if we eliminated all police tomorrow. Keep in mind, I'm not advocating that, but it would do more good than harm if that were to happen. All we need is an elected sheriff to help investigate crimes and serve the community. We don't need armies of unelected and unaccountable officers to control us. That does a lot more harm than good to society.

I don't agree with the drug laws, in part because they have that sort of effect. There is no way you could get by with a mere sheriff to investigate crimes, however. Maybe if you live in a tiny rural town of 1000 people

[Crashland]

Clear and concise articulation is really important...Hello?

When your second sentence contradicts the first glaringly then maybe your thoughts need coalesced before printing..Hello?

I shouldn't have to explain how those two sentences go together. You seem to think they contradict, yo

[tod evans]

I shouldn't have to explain how those two sentences go together. You seem to think they contradict, yo

English really isn't that tricky if it's your native tongue.

What's a "yo"? Half of a yo-yo or some kind of ghetto slang?

[PaulConventionWV]

If you think the entire justice system is rigged against you, then there's no helping you. I don't agree.

Then I think you are the one who is blinded. I was under the impression that the bias the Just-Us system had was pretty obvious. Ever gone to court for a traffic citation? Hell, forget about winning unless you're rich.


The laws are passed by elected representatives. If the laws favor arresting people for victimless crimes for no good reason, then yes, unfortunately, that is the will of the people.

That is ridiculous. For one, we don't have fair elections. Do you remember how hard it was to get Ron Paul any recognition with the media working against him? We're not even given the choice of decent candidates anymore. This is why there is such a low voting turnout. Nobody freaking cares anymore. That doesn't mean it's the will of the people. Secondly, the police don't even follow the law anymore. They are not held accountable by the system. That's why they are allowed to investigate themselves and that's why virtually no police officer sees the inside of a jail cell. Much of this was done without elections.

You can't honestly be here at RPF and simultaneously believe that our political system is completely functional and representative of the actual populace. Do you really believe that the system we have now is representative of what the people actually think?


I agree, but the place to fight that battle is not with the police officer. The place to fight that battle is in the courts, and in convincing your fellow citizens to change the laws.

You may not know this, but an arrest cannot be removed from your record no matter how many legal procedures you go through. Even if you are acquitted or it is expunged, it still shows it on your record. There is absolutely no recourse for people who are arrested. You're telling me that all I can do is start a campaign and hope that the rigged system sees the errors of its ways or people somehow get riled up enough about my case to virtually invade the system and change it from the inside? Yeah, right. Surely you understand how unlikely it is that anything we do will have an impact. Besides, what is the incentive to try if it takes so much work just to get a reform with very little chance of meaningful progress in your lifetime? How is that a solution?


No, that doesn't follow. The police have problems, but not nearly to the extent that some of you here would have us believe. The police are not the root of the problem. The root of the problem is bad laws.

*facepalm*

Who enforces the bad laws? What power would the law-makers have without the enforcement class? Come on, you know this one. The problem, as it is, is unfathomably horrific. Just the prospect that there are people out there who are paid to commit crimes and never receive justice is an unholy thought. Then consider all the things we have to do just to keep from being one of the thousands who die every year. The police don't even try to follow the law anymore, and somehow, you still have the gall to say it's the lawmakers' fault? People who are personally willing to do unspeakable evil on someone else's behalf are WORSE than the lawmakers.

[PaulConventionWV]

You have got to be kidding. No one has attempted to justify rapes robberies and murders.

Then why are you trying to act like it's not a problem that police can do this and not suffer consequences for it?

[PaulConventionWV]

All laws should be enforced. If it should not be enforced, then it should not be a law.

Actually, a bad law should not be enforced whether it is a law or not. People should refuse to enforce bad laws. I don't care who's paying them. If someone makes the decision to take a paycheck to enforce a bad law, they're far more evil than the person who put the words on the paper.

[surf]

just had to throw this out there - there's a dude, about 50, that hits balls at the golf range I work at everyday. he looks like he takes steroids, but that's beside the point. asked him what he does for a living and he told me he's a retired cop getting his full pension because he is hard of hearing now....

it's not only their actions and attitudes (us vs them) that piss me off, it's these goddamn pensions. tough life....

[Crashland]

Actually it does in a strictly legal sense.

Are you familiar with a "tacit agreement"?

I don't see how it applies in this context. Paying for law enforcement does not necessarily imply bestowing any special privileges on law enforcement officers. The difference is that you end up with paid, trained professionals/experts investigating crimes and crime scenes instead of unpaid, untrained amateurs. Of course, in real life, special privileges have often been bestowed on law enforcement, so I am speaking about paying for law enforcement only in general, not about how it actually is in our system today.

[tod evans]

The police are not the root of the problem. The root of the problem is bad laws.

The "root of the problem" is the "Just-Us" department in its entirety, the legislative, judicial and executive branches, not just one or two of them as each one serves and protects the other at the expense of the citizens freedom.

There is no asking those involved in the system to fix their system, it's working exactly as they want it to.

[CaptainAmerica]

http://img.pandawhale.com/56110-Patrick-Star-beating-a-dead-ho-L6El.gif

[Crashland]

Then why are you trying to act like it's not a problem that police can do this and not suffer consequences for it?

I have said multiple times that this is a problem. I am not against addressing this problem. What I am against is having a perspective in which most cops do nothing but violate our rights day in and day out.

[PaulConventionWV]

Did you read the second sentence? I said, "If it should not be enforced, then it should not be a law." Hello?

Well, it's a little late for that. Now that we have all these laws, you apparently think they should be enforced simply because they are laws. You think that decent people should decide to do evil for a paycheck from taxpayer money because social contract. I'll tell you what a "civilized" person does. A civilized person would not enforce a bad law no matter how much money they're offered. According to you, the people who enforced Hitler's laws were completely blameless because the respect for the law is much more important than not making yourself beholden to tyranny.

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes, the world is not black and white. That is why I refrain from using terminology like "they do things that I would rightfully be incarcerated for", or otherwise painting the police with a broad brush.
Enforcing bad laws is no more evil than the people who write those same laws, or the people who vote for those laws.

But it's still evil, correct? Then why are you acting like that's not a problem?

[otherone]

Well, it's a little late for that. Now that we have all these laws, you apparently think they should be enforced simply because they are laws. You think that decent people should decide to do evil for a paycheck from taxpayer money because social contract. I'll tell you what a "civilized" person does. A civilized person would not enforce a bad law no matter how much money they're offered. According to you, the people who enforced Hitler's laws were completely blameless because the respect for the law is much more important than not making yourself beholden to tyranny.

...shoulda voted:

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608042699514710579&pid=15.1&P=0

[tod evans]

I don't see how it applies in this context. Paying for law enforcement does not necessarily imply bestowing any special privileges on law enforcement officers. The difference is that you end up with paid, trained professionals/experts investigating crimes and crime scenes instead of unpaid, untrained amateurs. Of course, in real life, special privileges have often been bestowed on law enforcement, so I am speaking about paying for law enforcement only in general, not about how it actually is in our system today.

If you so much as verbally support the concept of kops as they are known today then yes you're in tacit agreement with their actions, ALL OF THEM.

Backpedaling and trying to qualify poorly thought out proclamations won't change that.

I've been brought to task for holding the janitor in the federal courthouses equally responsible for the state the country is in yet I stand by my belief of the entire system being rotten to its very core and beyond rehabilitation.

[PaulConventionWV]

No, it's a good thing that laws are enforced because laws are a form of social contract, and civilized societies respect things like that...

Yes, including the nazis. The nazis were a civilized people. That's why Hitler had an army of enforcers "keeping the peace" and preventing Germany from plunging into chaos. Aren't you glad they held up the respect for law with their deeds?

[PaulConventionWV]

Where did I say that? Please quote

They're enforcing uncivilized laws.

[otherone]

Being willing to pay for law enforcement does not equal endorsing criminal behavior by said law enforcement.

Aren't you the fella that said in another thread that torture is sometimes moral?

[Crashland]

Actually, a bad law should not be enforced whether it is a law or not. People should refuse to enforce bad laws. I don't care who's paying them. If someone makes the decision to take a paycheck to enforce a bad law, they're far more evil than the person who put the words on the paper.

If the law is truly evil, you have a point, there is joint culpability. I would still put more weight on the politician though, who is responsible for the creation of the law as well as putting the police officer in a position where they might have to choose between keeping their job or enforcing an immoral law. There is also some degree of culpability to citizens who see bad laws and do nothing about it.

[tod evans]

There is also some degree of culpability to citizens who see bad laws and do nothing about it.

The ol' "You did this to yourself" argument...:rolleyes:

[Crashland]

Aren't you the fella that said in another thread that torture is sometimes moral?

Theoretically, yes, because I believe that any particular action is in and of itself, inherently amoral, outside of external context. Let's not go there

[Crashland]

The ol' "You did this to yourself" argument...:rolleyes:

Yes, "You did this to yourself" would be far too simplistic. In reality, blame isn't something that fits nicely in a box, whether it's police officers, politicians, or apathetic citizens.

[otherone]

Theoretically, yes, because I believe that any particular action is in and of itself, inherently amoral, outside of external context. Let's not go there

We're there already.
How many bad guys apprehended justify this 'amoral' act?:

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608018231081372153&pid=15.1&P=0

[PaulConventionWV]

No, I am not operating under that ridiculous assumption. I support reducing the police force.

Well, good, but the fact that you still think our electoral and political system is valid means you don't understand how bad the problem is.


Arresting criminals and investigating crime scenes.

They would do a far better job of this if they weren't so busy with highway robbery and other extortion schemes as well as covering up there own crimes. As noted, I think this is far outweighed by the harm they do to society in the form of fees, penalties, enforcing bad laws and crimes of their own.


I haven't advocated using police as a deterrent. Deterrence does come into play but I wouldn't give a whole lot of weight to it either.

Then what is the good they do that couldn't be done by someone else? You mentioned investigating crimes, but that can easily be done by an elected sheriff with the help of private investigators.


I don't agree with the drug laws, in part because they have that sort of effect. There is no way you could get by with a mere sheriff to investigate crimes, however. Maybe if you live in a tiny rural town of 1000 people

Then again I ask, what is this perceived good that the police do? Surely you'll admit that the violence caused by drug laws and the other victimless crimes they enforce far outweights the tiny fraction of good they do which could easily be done by someone else. A sheriff could handle this because 1) He has the help of the community and private investigators for hire and 2) The crime rate would be staggeringly lower due to the fact that victimless crimes would not be enforced. Are you even comprehending how much more time is spent on victimless crimes than is spent on actual, legitimate investigations? I think a sheriff could easily handle the legitimate crimes, given that they are a small fraction of the crimes that people are actually charged for.

[Crashland]

If you so much as verbally support the concept of kops as they are known today then yes you're in tacit agreement with their actions, ALL OF THEM.

Backpedaling and trying to qualify poorly thought out proclamations won't change that.

No, it doesn't, that does not follow at all. The issue is not black and white. I do not always speak favorably about police as they are known today, and I do not always speak unfavorably about them.

Call it backpedaling or qualifying if you want, I see it as a good thing because it means we are growing closer to agreement. None of us are perfect communicators or perfect thinkers, and if you point out something that makes me need to clarify, I am all for it. After all, Re: Why are you here?

To put it concisely, I am here to learn, and to cheer on Rand Paul 2016.

[PaulConventionWV]

I don't see how it applies in this context. Paying for law enforcement does not necessarily imply bestowing any special privileges on law enforcement officers. The difference is that you end up with paid, trained professionals/experts investigating crimes and crime scenes instead of unpaid, untrained amateurs. Of course, in real life, special privileges have often been bestowed on law enforcement, so I am speaking about paying for law enforcement only in general, not about how it actually is in our system today.

You don't pay for them voluntarily, so we can just toss that whole spiel out right now...

[Crashland]

We're there already.
How many bad guys apprehended justify this 'amoral' act?:

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608018231081372153&pid=15.1&P=0

Oh, quite gruesome! I don't know, I don't make it a thing to think about these things on a regular basis. If it were somehow necessary to prevent the earth from exploding, it would probably be worth it. I'm not too worried about that happening though

[PaulConventionWV]

I have said multiple times that this is a problem. I am not against addressing this problem. What I am against is having a perspective in which most cops do nothing but violate our rights day in and day out.

But that's exactly what they do. They spend most of their time enforcing laws for victimless crimes. A police officer will almost certainly violent someone's rights every single day he goes to work.

[Crashland]

You don't pay for them voluntarily, so we can just toss that whole spiel out right now...

Now of course we get into the legitimacy of taxes. I'm really not up for that argument right now, I'm too weary

[tod evans]

No, it doesn't, that does not follow at all. The issue is not black and white. I do not always speak favorably about police as they are known today, and I do not always speak unfavorably about them.


In their courts if you speak favorably of a criminal act then you may be held accountable for that act if you were in close proximity when it was committed, in fact if you fail to report a criminal act you may be held accountable for that too.

This is the tacit agreement of which I speak.

There are thousands of cases yearly where witnesses are forced to testify and folks are convicted using this theory, simply search Westlaw using the word "conspiracy" to start.

In less than 8 hours I promise you'll have a whole new outlook..

[tangent4ronpaul]

No thank you. I refuse to work for organised criminal organizations!!!

It's called MORALS! :mad:

-t

[PaulConventionWV]

If the law is truly evil, you have a point, there is joint culpability. I would still put more weight on the politician though, who is responsible for the creation of the law as well as putting the police officer in a position where they might have to choose between keeping their job or enforcing an immoral law. There is also some degree of culpability to citizens who see bad laws and do nothing about it.

Yeah, politicians are bad, too, but if you really believe in personal responsibility, then the person who pulls the trigger is still much worse. I guess it doesn't surprise me, though, since you clearly underestimate just how many crimes police themselves are responsible for. You don't understand that it's the system allowing them to act this way. And when the system allows them to do this, that virtually ensures that all cops will be bad because good cops won't last in a bad system.

The bad cops that are left act with reckless disregard for the law and nobody cares or does anything about it.

[GunnyFreedom]

We're there already.
How many bad guys apprehended justify this 'amoral' act?:

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608018231081372153&pid=15.1&P=0


Oh, quite gruesome! I don't know, I don't make it a thing to think about these things on a regular basis. If it were somehow necessary to prevent the earth from exploding, it would probably be worth it. I'm not too worried about that happening though

I'm not too worried about that happening

I'm not too worried about that happening

I'm not too worried about that happening

[PaulConventionWV]

Now of course we get into the legitimacy of taxes. I'm really not up for that argument right now, I'm too weary

It kind of throws your whole "social contract" out the window.

[Crashland]

In their courts if you speak favorably of a criminal act then you may be held accountable for that act if you were in close proximity when it was committed, in fact if you fail to report a criminal act you may be held accountable for that too.

This is the tacit agreement of which I speak.

There are thousands of cases yearly where witnesses are forced to testify and folks are convicted using this theory, simply search Westlaw using the word "conspiracy" to start.

In less than 8 hours I promise you'll have a whole new outlook..

I will look into that. However, speaking favorably about a police department's non-criminal behavior is not speaking favorably of a criminal act.

[Crashland]

I'm not too worried about that happening

I'm not too worried about that happening

I'm not too worried about that happening



I was talking about the earth exploding, not the baby damnit.

[tod evans]

I will look into that. However, speaking favorably about a police department's non-criminal behavior is not speaking favorably of a criminal act.

If you tacitly support kops in their vocation then you tacitly support them in their vocation period.

[tangent4ronpaul]

You are talking about Baltimore CITY cops! Get your car impounded for whatever reason - 100% percent chance the impound cops will break into your car and ROB YOU! Been there, done that :(

We have a area called "The Block" that contains most of the strip clubs in the area. They built the police HQ next to it. It's full of illegal brothels.

BALTIMORE CITY COPS WILL CRACK YOUR SKULL FOR SKATEBOARDING AND MINDING YOUR OWN!

STAY AWAY FROM THE CITY!!!!

Baltimore city cops are corrupt as hell!

The county ones are a LOT better!

Unfortunately this is endemic in every large city across the country.

-t

[pcosmar]

Whether there is a practical need for state-paid police is an interesting topic,

Oh,, there is a practical need. They are needed by authoritarians to enforce control.

Why do you feel that people NEED to be controlled?
By what authority,, and by who's standards is this control to be enforced?


Personally I would rather pay someone else to enforce the law as a professional job than to bring that entire responsibility upon myself,

With Liberty there is responsibility.
And I fully expect that irresponsibility is the reason that police were created,, or allowed to be created,, and then grow to the level of an army among us.

And which laws do you want enforced? By what right do YOU have to inflict that particular law on your fellow men?
If you have no right personally to enforce a law,,, you have no right to delegate that authority.

[Crashland]

Oh,, there is a practical need. They are needed by authoritarians to enforce control.

Why do you feel that people NEED to be controlled?
By what authority,, and by who's standards is this control to be enforced?

With Liberty there is responsibility.
And I fully expect that irresponsibility is the reason that police were created,, or allowed to be created,, and then grow to the level of an army among us.

And which laws do you want enforced? By what right do YOU have to inflict that particular law on your fellow men?
If you have no right personally to enforce a law,,, you have no right to delegate that authority.

The practical need is that most of us have things we would rather do than investigate traffic accidents, respond to emergency calls, arrest criminals, and file reports. And most of us would be extremely bad at doing those things unless we are paid professionals. We do have the right to enforce laws, and we do have the right to delegate that responsibility. If it is limited to delegation of responsibility as opposed to authority/control then there wouldn't be a problem.

[GunnyFreedom]

I was talking about the earth exploding, not the baby damnit.

I am well aware that you were talking about the Earth exploding. How I read your statement was that you didn't care about the baby, and maybe - just maybe - if it would prevent the Earth from exploding, then you might condescend to actually care about it. Thus (because the Earth is unlikely to explode) you do not expect to have to bother yourself to care about the baby. Maybe you can re-word the statement into something that does not mean that?

[tangent4ronpaul]

Crimes against persons or property. Everything else is tax collection and robbery!

-t

[Crashland]

I am well aware that you were talking about the Earth exploding. How I read your statement was that you didn't care about the baby, and maybe - just maybe - if it would prevent the Earth from exploding, then you might condescend to actually care about it. Thus (because the Earth is unlikely to explode) you do not expect to have to bother yourself to care about the baby. Maybe you can re-word the statement into something that does not mean that?

Another way to put it would be, I care about the baby in all situations. However, if the earth is about to explode, I would care more about the earth exploding than I would the baby.

[tod evans]

The practical need is that most of us have things we would rather do than investigate traffic accidents, respond to emergency calls, arrest criminals, and file reports. And most of us would be extremely bad at doing those things unless we are paid professionals. We do have the right to enforce laws, and we do have the right to delegate that responsibility. If it is limited to delegation of responsibility as opposed to authority/control then there wouldn't be a problem.

Over 30% of your income will go toward taxes if it doesn't already, what are these "trained professionals" worth to you?

[pcosmar]

The practical need is that most of us have things we would rather do than investigate traffic accidents, respond to emergency calls, arrest criminals, and file reports. And most of us would be extremely bad at doing those things unless we are paid professionals. We do have the right to enforce laws, and we do have the right to delegate that responsibility. If it is limited to delegation of responsibility as opposed to authority/control then there wouldn't be a problem.

Those things can be done by those involved. I respond to emergency calls. And I have done automobile forensics. but that is my profession.
If I worked in retail,, theft,,and asset protection would be part of my job. I learned First Aid as a child. I have rendered aid,, and would do so again.

I have lived where hurricanes were common.. and dealt with the storms and the clean up. People do that.. they do it best without government interference.

[Crashland]

Over 30% of your income will go toward taxes if it doesn't already, what are these "trained professionals" worth to you?

The amount of money that goes into police departments is miniscule compared to everything else the government does. Speaking about my own local government

[phill4paul]

69360 and Crashland. Two more for Operation Rep. Burn. Daily.

[tod evans]

The amount of money that goes into police departments is miniscule compared to everything else the government does. Speaking about my own local government

This in no way answers the question.

Try again.

[JK/SEA]

The amount of money that goes into police departments is miniscule compared to everything else the government does. Speaking about my own local government

clearly, you're batting a thousand. Nice work. Very impressive.

[Crashland]

This in no way answers the question.

Try again.

They are worth less than we currently allocate.

[heavenlyboy34]

Not valid my ass. My army of police soldiers says otherwise.

Don't like it? Do something about it.

That's what I thought.
Oh yeah? I'll git me an army of police soldiers and show you what's whut! ;)

[heavenlyboy34]

It kind of throws your whole "social contract" out the window.

BOOM! Headshot! :D +rep

[PaulConventionWV]

The practical need is that most of us have things we would rather do than investigate traffic accidents, respond to emergency calls, arrest criminals, and file reports. And most of us would be extremely bad at doing those things unless we are paid professionals. We do have the right to enforce laws, and we do have the right to delegate that responsibility. If it is limited to delegation of responsibility as opposed to authority/control then there wouldn't be a problem.

That's why we have private investigators who do that for a living.

[Crashland]

That's why we have private investigators who do that for a living.

We do have private investigators, but without publicly funded investigators then the poorest citizens would have zero services unless there is some sort of charity police org. I am just not on board with complete privatization.
Unfortunately, I have to run now. Through the course of this discussion, I think perhaps I moved an inch. But I am still a very long way from agreeing with many of your points.

[Theocrat]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f9tZ688jgI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1ABR4UpDSU

[PaulConventionWV]

We do have private investigators, but without publicly funded investigators then the poorest citizens would have zero services unless there is some sort of charity police org. I am just not on board with complete privatization.
Unfortunately, I have to run now. Through the course of this discussion, I think perhaps I moved an inch. But I am still a very long way from agreeing with many of your points.

Well, at least my argument has had an effect. However, one of the oldest ideas that I would never expect to hear on RPF is the idea that we need government to provide services because some people just can't afford it. I'm not even going to respond to that one because you really should know better already. If you come here thinking the welfare state, in any form, is ever a good idea, then it would seem you don't know what you believe. It's a matter of principle that you apparently just don't get but is a core principle of Ron Paul's philosophy.

[nobody's_hero]

Oh, quite gruesome! I don't know, I don't make it a thing to think about these things on a regular basis. If it were somehow necessary to prevent the earth from exploding, it would probably be worth it. I'm not too worried about that happening though

Why are you even on these forums, bud?

You know, we aren't here because financial collapse happens in the U.S. on a 'regular basis.' Most of us got attracted to Ron Paul because he recognized the flaws in our financial system and tried to do something about it. I don't make it a thing to think about the 2008 bubble burst on a 'regular basis', but I'm still here and still speaking out against the Fed for anyone who will listen.

Same issue with cops. I don't think about baby Bou on a regular basis. I don't even live in the same county in Georgia where that flash-bang attack happened. But unlike you, I don't actually have to wait for something bad to happen to me personally to recognize that we as a nation are drifting into tyranny.

[tod evans]

They are worth less than we currently allocate.

Once again you've dodged the question..let me help;


"Over 30% of your income will go toward taxes if it doesn't already,what are these "trained professionals" worth to you?"

See how there is no mention of us or we?

I very clearly asked what percentage of your income you were willing to forfeit...

[A Son of Liberty]

The thing about your likelihood going up wit han actual encounter is that it's true of any profession... but what Crashland is leaving out is the fact that, while that's true, it doesn't invalidate the argument! Yes, your likelihood of being killed by a construction worker goes up with an encounter. So what! What does that have to do with police?

I get that. What he seems to disregard is that, unlike construction workers, encounters with police are predicated upon a presumption that YOU are a targeted inferior, and that they have "authority", and a gun, and as we have seen practically no accountability.

Conversely, as a construction worker, you are far more likely to be injured or killed on the job than a cop. Yet we never hear about the bravery and sacrifice of construction workers.

[osan]

No, laws should be enforced because they are a form of social contract. Civilized societies respect things like that.

FAIL ALERT!

FAIL ALERT!

"Social contract", as commonly understood, is an oxymoron. Are you aware of what a contract is? There are six elements of a contract, the absence of any element rendering whatever it is in your hands something other than a contract.

"Social contract" implies something into which a man has been born. This is an impossibility, "Social contract" bespeaks tyranny, the very concept of it reeking of same. Free men are under no such contract by birth. They may enter into such as matters of informed and non-coerced will, but can never become party through compulsion because compulsion lies in diametric contradiction of at least two of the elements of contracts:"offer", and "acceptance". "Offer"<>"order" or "compulsion" or "force".

Get a clue Albert, because you are embarrassing yourself in a most self-abusive way.

[PaulConventionWV]

I get that. What he seems to disregard is that, unlike construction workers, encounters with police are predicated upon a presumption that YOU are a targeted inferior, and that they have "authority", and a gun, and as we have seen practically no accountability.

Conversely, as a construction worker, you are far more likely to be injured or killed on the job than a cop. Yet we never hear about the bravery and sacrifice of construction workers.

Agreed. It's rather a shame, actually. Construction workers built this city (literally).

[Christian Liberty]

Ah yes, we discussed this before.

You maintain that there are not enough granmothers being shot or babies blown up, to really assign any level of worry or warrant any response to the problem at this time.

Unfortunate that you think this way.

That said, the stories are not "anecdotal".

That would suggest they are hearsay, untrue or third or fourth or fifth hand information.

They are (at least the ones that I post) well sourced and documented.

I think its important to have responses to the people who say "yes, the cops who do those things are bad but its not systematic." There are multiple places you could go from there but I think its important to have something to say to those people (that is, if we're actually trying to educate people and not giving up just yet.)

The people who say these things aren't a problem at all are beyond hope.

[Christian Liberty]

I've had enough of "cop life" in my 11th grade law enforcement class. I never actually violated anybody's rights, but I did, even at the time when I was less awake than I am now, recognize the problem with loads of people admitting that certain laws were bad yet having no moral problem with the idea of enforcing them because "you have to enforce all the laws' and so forth. And on the last day I believe I responded to something someone said with "I don't really trust the police" (Note that I did NOT say "all cops are bad", I wasn't nearly at that point yet, but I did recognize that government officials of any kind needed to be kept on a tight leash) to which someone asked me why I was there. It was a good question. Why was I there? There's an answer, but the bottom line is its not really something I want to do again, even though I did enjoy it at the time (I was libertarian leaning but not nearly like I am today.)

[Christian Liberty]

Over 30% of your income will go toward taxes if it doesn't already, what are these "trained professionals" worth to you?


The amount of money that goes into police departments is miniscule compared to everything else the government does. Speaking about my own local government

Two things...

First of all, the cops are responsible for all of the tax money because if it wasn't for them, the taxes wouldn't actually have any teeth to them, and thus tax law would really just be a strongly worded recommendation, at least to people who were aware of the situation (which we would be.)

Second of all, you can't delegate the responsibility to "enforce laws" as a generic. You can only delegate SPECIFIC rights you have. You have no right to lock people up for smoking a plant, steal from them because they drive faster than you like or don't wear a seatbelt, etc.

[muh_roads]

If all of you here on RPF who constantly bitch and complain about police, BECAME the police, you could fix what you have issues with from within. Cops have a huge amount of discretion in enforcement.

"Good" cops that try to expose corruption get fired.

Also, I'd feel like a dirty piece of shit working in the public sector. But that's just me.

[Christian Liberty]

"Good" cops that try to expose corruption get fired.

Also, I'd feel like a dirty piece of shit working in the public sector. But that's just me.

Its worse than that.

If you work as a clerk at the DMV or the Medicare office, or something like that, you are taking money from the thieves, that is true. I don't see anything wrong with that so long as you don't let that be an excuse to vote to let the thieves keep stealing. But its a whole nother issue to work as part of the enforcement arm, to actively work to keep the system going using aggressive violence.

[jmdrake]

I really enjoy the fallacy spread here that cops have impunity from prosecution and will never be punished.

You all really do believe that don't you?

If that is the case why aren't they shooting and robbing at will?

Let's see. Here are the possibilities.

1) They could still get fired or have to resign. Darren Wilson resigned.

2) Even if you only get prosecuted 1 out of 10 times, that's still a 10% chance of a real prosecution.

3) There's the very real possibility that police killings can reach a point where the public at large rises up guns in hand.

4) Most cops are decent people and won't kill someone even if they can get away with it.

Let's consider point #4. For a long time some Catholic priests were getting away with molesting children because the church hierarchy covered for them. Now the overwhelming majority of priests where not pedophiles. How many priests knew about what was going on? I don't know. But I suspect those who weren't pedophiles didn't become pedophiles just because they could "get away with it." That said, how many priests had to be able to get away with it before you would think it was a problem? If only 0.001% of Catholics were ever molested by a priest, would that make up for a systematic cover up of molestation by the church hierarchy?

[GunnyFreedom]

Having had this conversation about 'yeah when you are in trouble you'll call the cops' with a lot of people, it still strikes me as odd how people cannot even begin to fathom that I do not want the police around even if there is an active crime ongoing against me. They literally cannot conceive of the idea that someone facing a criminal would not want the cops around. I try to explain that with the crook I have a 10% chance of getting killed, add cops and that bumps to 25%. Zero comprehension. It's like I'm not even speaking English.

[The Gold Standard]

I suppose that would make the constitution a non-valid tacit agreement too. But I'm not here to debate anarchism

The Constitution is not a "social contract". It is an actual, real life contract. Signed by officials of the government it was written to govern. The Constitution was created to govern the government. It provides no restrictions for the people.

[Red Green]

The amount of money that goes into police departments is miniscule compared to everything else the government does. Speaking about my own local government

I just checked the City of Phoenix budget and the pigs eat up roughly just short of half the entire budget. That's a lot of cheese for the pigs. Try again.

[Christian Liberty]

The Constitution is not a "social contract". It is an actual, real life contract. Signed by officials of the government it was written to govern. The Constitution was created to govern the government. It provides no restrictions for the people.

It does allow the government to restrict us though...

[pcosmar]

It does allow the government to restrict us though...

Where?
What infringements does it allow?

Other than eminent domain,,Which I am not fond of. Even then it does require compensation for the loss.

[The Gold Standard]

It does allow the government to restrict us though...

It does, and I'm not advocating that it is a perfect form of government or anything. But you and I didn't sign it either, so the document itself doesn't and can't require anything from us. I just thought I would chime in because calling it a "social contract" like it is the equivalent of the more well known "social contract" is completely wrong.

[H. E. Panqui]

I've found most copsucker types like 69360, Crashland, and others, are Republicans..the pigs can do no/hardly any wrong in their Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck intellect...

...it's no use trying to reason with copsuckers...

...even though 'cops' eagerly sign up and swear to enforce scores of obviously stooooooooooooooooooooopid/destructive rules of conduct ('laws') made by gd fool, delusional psychopath Republicrat politicians....resulting in profound told and untold disharmony...the incarceration nation..'but it's not the cops' fault,' the copsuckers apologize/shill/lie...:rolleyes:...

...Republican copsuckers can frequently be found scolding people who dare reveal the hideous reality...

[Christian Liberty]

It does, and I'm not advocating that it is a perfect form of government or anything. But you and I didn't sign it either, so the document itself doesn't and can't require anything from us. I just thought I would chime in because calling it a "social contract" like it is the equivalent of the more well known "social contract" is completely wrong.

Valid point, I agree. This is why I don't really believe in the constitution and yet I hold government officials to it anyway.

[otherone]

The Constitution is not a "social contract". It is an actual, real life contract. Signed by officials of the government it was written to govern. The Constitution was created to govern the government. It provides no restrictions for the people.

OT...interesting how all the subsequent vermin aren't required to sign that contract.

[tod evans]

OT...interesting how all the subsequent vermin aren't required to sign that contract.

Oh they're required to swear an "oath" to uphold whatever interpretation of the constitution is currently in effect but obviously their oath isn't binding and there's no repercussions for failure to deliver....