|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Oct 13, 2011 0:02:19 GMT -5
LOL whatever. I'm gonna fuck off again for a while. The lack of skeptical and critical thinking here is depressing the shit out of me. I'm gonna go try to talk some reason into the folks over at Rapture Ready instead. They might be more open to reason, this place is a lost cause. I only showed up again because I assumed y'all would be outraged at the police brutality going on with Occupy Wall Street and wanted to call y'all out for being hypocrites. However, I don't see anywhere near the outrage from these boards as I was anticipating. Apparently y'all are consistent in your State worship, hard leftists of the Stalin/Kim Jong Il type as opposed to the confused college hippy type. My mistake. Go try to talk reason to RR. See how many posts they let you make before they ban you completly. |
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Oct 13, 2011 0:24:52 GMT -5
Wow, AA was back. Things went almost exactly as I would have expected them to, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Oct 13, 2011 0:26:14 GMT -5
LOL whatever. I'm gonna fuck off again for a while. The lack of skeptical and critical thinking here is depressing the shit out of me. I'm gonna go try to talk some reason into the folks over at Rapture Ready instead. They might be more open to reason, this place is a lost cause. I only showed up again because I assumed y'all would be outraged at the police brutality going on with Occupy Wall Street and wanted to call y'all out for being hypocrites. However, I don't see anywhere near the outrage from these boards as I was anticipating. Apparently y'all are consistent in your State worship, hard leftists of the Stalin/Kim Jong Il type as opposed to the confused college hippy type. My mistake. My God, it was back! But only for long enough to tell us that we didn't need no goddam police because he'd totally ITG and ragequit those danged rapists to death! I'm sure every sex offender on the planet is shaking in his boots. |
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Oct 13, 2011 5:13:33 GMT -5
Well, whenever he does use his 14th degree blackbelt in ITG-fu, we'll know that he's acting as the One-Man PoPo Replacement Force(tm), and is not to be trusted because he's a cop analogue.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 13, 2011 5:56:49 GMT -5
Let's say that police are systematically corrupt, over-violent, criminal and harm more than they help. That is not true of 100% of cases. Let's make a wild overestimate and say that's true of 80% of cases. What's the alternative? Criminals have a 100% rate of criminality, over-harm and corruption. What's the rate for vigilantees- 85%?
The US police system may be systematically busted. But reducing the number of crimes police are allowed to prosecute will, by definition, worsen those crimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Oct 13, 2011 6:00:24 GMT -5
I'm more stoked about the elimination of misdemeanors. The DV thing is sticky at best, but keep in mind that safety is relative. Quite frankly anything that limits police power IMHO will ultimately have the effect of increasing everyone's safety in the long run. This does NOTHING to affect police powers. Police can still arrest you, and that arrest will stay on your criminal history. The only thing that changes is you won't have a conviction. Cite please. Over the past year, I have read a lot of police reports for DV. Not one has involved brutailty on the part of the cops. None involve going to the wrong house. None involve the of any living thing. If it happens so "often," wouldn't that information be in the report. Or if not in the report, wouldn't the defendant bring that up in plea negotiations? Strangely enough, neither happens... |
|
|
|
Post by Bezron on Oct 13, 2011 8:43:19 GMT -5
...You say completely ignoring the not-prosecuting-domestic-abuse. After all of that shit you recently raised about supporting peoples' rights, you're not big on the right to safety? I'm more stoked about the elimination of misdemeanors. The DV thing is sticky at best, but keep in mind that safety is relative. Quite frankly anything that limits police power IMHO will ultimately have the effect of increasing everyone's safety in the long run. Domestic abuse is horrible, and I'm not saying it should be tolerated, but consider the fact that it's not exactly effectively or ethically enforced as is. An overwhelming number of abused women are married to police officers and they have no recourse in any circumstance really, in many cases even not involving fellow cops it's ignored anyway, and when it is enforced, it's often with excessive brutality, or cops come busting into the wrong house and kill dogs/children/innocent old people etc. If there was some magical way to prevent or eliminate DV I'd be all for it. In the mean time, this very well may be the best of two bad options. I'm also pretty damn sure I never said that I wouldn't call the cops to prevent a rape. It WOULD be an extreme last resort, but if there was no way I could take care of it myself (ex. the guy is huge, has a weapon, or multiple friends etc.) I would just take the pussy way out and call the cops. I'm not an anarchist, and I strongly feel that things like rape and murder should be punished severely. I sure as fuck wouldn't just walk by and let it happen, which is what seems to be implied here. [citation needed] Seriously, you mention "overwhelming numbers" and how any crime involving cops isn't prosecuted, cite your sources. Direct request, response required. Aww, hell, I should have read the rest of the thread before posting this. oh well, I'll leave it here so that he can dodge it when he comes back. I will also say, timing was suspicious...he seemed to pop up within like 2 posts of comparing our other OMGZ PULICE R BAD poster to him... Kinda makes one curious, ya know? |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Oct 13, 2011 8:53:22 GMT -5
Let's say that police are systematically corrupt, over-violent, criminal and harm more than they help. That is not true of 100% of cases. Let's make a wild overestimate and say that's true of 80% of cases. What's the alternative? Criminals have a 100% rate of criminality, over-harm and corruption. What's the rate for vigilantees- 85%? Point of order - you're disregarding the absolute number of police/criminals/vigilantes. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Oct 13, 2011 9:46:45 GMT -5
I'm more stoked about the elimination of misdemeanors. The DV thing is sticky at best, but keep in mind that safety is relative. Quite frankly anything that limits police power IMHO will ultimately have the effect of increasing everyone's safety in the long run. Domestic abuse is horrible, and I'm not saying it should be tolerated, but consider the fact that it's not exactly effectively or ethically enforced as is. An overwhelming number of abused women are married to police officers and they have no recourse in any circumstance really, in many cases even not involving fellow cops it's ignored anyway, and when it is enforced, it's often with excessive brutality, or cops come busting into the wrong house and kill dogs/children/innocent old people etc. If there was some magical way to prevent or eliminate DV I'd be all for it. In the mean time, this very well may be the best of two bad options. I'm also pretty damn sure I never said that I wouldn't call the cops to prevent a rape. It WOULD be an extreme last resort, but if there was no way I could take care of it myself (ex. the guy is huge, has a weapon, or multiple friends etc.) I would just take the pussy way out and call the cops. I'm not an anarchist, and I strongly feel that things like rape and murder should be punished severely. I sure as fuck wouldn't just walk by and let it happen, which is what seems to be implied here. [citation needed] Seriously, you mention "overwhelming numbers" and how any crime involving cops isn't prosecuted, cite your sources. Direct request, response required. Aww, hell, I should have read the rest of the thread before posting this. oh well, I'll leave it here so that he can dodge it when he comes back. I will also say, timing was suspicious...he seemed to pop up within like 2 posts of comparing our other OMGZ PULICE R BAD poster to him... Kinda makes one curious, ya know? I'm writing it off as AA is a demon and that invoking his name summons him. Also, To be fair to LHM, he's only BECOMING a "OMGZ PULICE R BAD" poster. He's not quite there yet because he still has some respect for (his own) military. D Laurier, on the other hand, IS our resident "OMGZ PULICE R BAD" poster. |
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Oct 13, 2011 13:49:29 GMT -5
Aw, damn, AA was here and I missed it. I haven't seen him since I was a wee newbie making my first posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by priestling on Oct 13, 2011 15:40:34 GMT -5
you didn't miss much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 14, 2011 2:38:46 GMT -5
"RR is more reasonable."
Oh, that hurt my feelings. It wasn't at all a pathetic ad hominem.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 14, 2011 2:59:26 GMT -5
[citation needed] Seriously, you mention "overwhelming numbers" and how any crime involving cops isn't prosecuted, cite your sources. Direct request, response required. Aww, hell, I should have read the rest of the thread before posting this. oh well, I'll leave it here so that he can dodge it when he comes back. I will also say, timing was suspicious...he seemed to pop up within like 2 posts of comparing our other OMGZ PULICE R BAD poster to him... Kinda makes one curious, ya know? Also, To be fair to LHM, he's only BECOMING a "OMGZ PULICE R BAD" poster. He's not quite there yet because he still has some respect for (his own) military. Nonsense. I have nothing but respect for competent, compasionate police officers who do their job properly. I have utmost contempt for police who abuse their power, or are corrupt. You should too. It is madness to avoid criticism of police when there are clear and present problems in the system for fear of upsetting them, or something. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? and all that. These are people we grant powers far beyond those of the individual private citizen, and they should be held to a far higher standard accordingly. I fail to see anything unreasonable in my position. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 14, 2011 5:48:16 GMT -5
Let's say that police are systematically corrupt, over-violent, criminal and harm more than they help. That is not true of 100% of cases. Let's make a wild overestimate and say that's true of 80% of cases. What's the alternative? Criminals have a 100% rate of criminality, over-harm and corruption. What's the rate for vigilantees- 85%? Point of order - you're disregarding the absolute number of police/criminals/vigilantes. My point is that they're interrelated. There are more bankrobbers if there are fewer police or vigilantees, and more vigilantees if there are fewer cops. Maybe cops are usually corrupt, but they're less so than criminals. |
|
