[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
I’m amazed you still live there, Max…you’ve been posting about what a horrible state it is since I’ve been here, haha. [/quote]
California is one of those places that you love despite the politics. And where else would you move from here? Where else offers the same amount of leisure time activities as California does?
james
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And OJ was found not guilty… How is that a stain on the LAPD?[/quote]
I believe a lot of dirt came out during the case about Mark Furhman (lead detective or something) and what a racist dbag he was. [/quote]
The thing about this is Furhman was portrayed by the defense attorneys as a dirtbag and the (incompetent) prosecution team (for some reason) decided not to refute the accusations. The dirt the defense team used to portray Mark Furhman as a racist with was from work Furhman did with an author to help her write a fictional novel. With her, he was going into character as a dirtbag cop, not as himself, to help her develop the character in the book.
“But he was convicted of perjury” you say. Yes, he lied about not having used the n word in the past.
This actually does support Maximo’s contention about LA corruption. Mark Furhman was a good cop and probably basically a good guy and they chose to wreck his life to save face.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Guys, please keep in mind, I am not taking sides, I don’t know who or what is true within this clusterfuck of a mess. I don’t think innocent people should be killed by any means, Dorner is a psycho, no question about it.
About Rodney King.
The thing that set people off were, that all 4 cops who beat him were originally acquitted. 4 White cops who beat a black man into near death, who had the trial moved to a very white suburb called Simi Valley. It is so white, this is where the Reagan Library is. This is what set off the LA riots.
The Feds stepped in and intervened, and found 2 of the 4 guilty, and those 2 went to prison.
This is also where and why the OJ verdict came from. This was the people’s way of saying “fuck you” to cops and “the justice system”, was to let a pretty guilty looking guy walk free.
Again, I am not taking sides, just telling you what the local sentiment is here in Los Angeles.[/quote]
I mean, the guys that beat KIng went too far, way too far. But dude was going like 3x the speed limit in a residential neighborhood and fought the police as they tired to arrest him. He asked for a clubbing and got about 200 more than he asked for.
It wasn’t about race or the black people with him would have been beaten too.
But anyway.
I am not, in any way going to sit here and defend the LAPD, not in the slightest. particularly given how many of you agree they are dbags to citizens.
But, and most of us agree, this whole murder thing isn’t the way to go about solving the problem.
The trouble is that there is no way to solve the problem. So it goes on until someone snaps.
james
Here is a general question, and it is relative to the topic at hand. It is also a fictional scenario I just made up, so don’t try to debate the merits of if the tactic would work or not, lets just assume for the sake of the argument, the tactic would work.
You have a Mexican drug lord who runs a brutal regime, he is responsible for all sorts of evil. Kidnappings, murders, extortion, general terror, on and on and on.
Through some investigative work, you find out his mother is in a very nice nursing home in a nice part of mexico, their connection is very secretive but through some great investigative work, you find out who and where she is. The drug lord never leaves his heavily armed compound, but you have it on good intelligence that he loves his mother above all else and if something were to happen to her, there is a very good chance he either flips out and makes a tactical mistake in a rage, or becomes so saddened that he might leave the compound to attend her funeral, or otherwise make a tactical mistake out of pure sorrow.
There is no guarentee, but all of your experts say it is a 50% chance that killing his mother would result in either his apprehension or death. Do you murder an innocent old woman to potentially save many other innocent lives?
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
He is combatting a corrupt system to force change. [/quote]
So far the “change” he has forced is drones hunting US Citizens on US soil and SWAT teams shooting grandmothers.
Unintended consequences or not, that isn’t good change.
Citizens coming together with brave legal teams to bring clas action suits against the city and the LAPD? Now that is “change” that will have postive consequences.
Hitler wasn’t a US citizen with due process rights protected by law and the blood of fallen patriots.
Yeah no, it has laready been shown this won’t happen. Recent events at an elementary school prove this. Criminals don’t listen to laws, yet adding laws to the books is supposed to stop criminals…
So yeah, just like a Hollywood movie, this should end well. Sorta like the Notebook I imagine.
Pretty sure a former Cop going around murdering people is only going to make things worse for the citizens of LA, but hey maybe I’m a cynic.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Here is a general question, and it is relative to the topic at hand. It is also a fictional scenario I just made up, so don’t try to debate the merits of if the tactic would work or not, lets just assume for the sake of the argument, the tactic would work.
You have a Mexican drug lord who runs a brutal regime, he is responsible for all sorts of evil. Kidnappings, murders, extortion, general terror, on and on and on.
Through some investigative work, you find out his mother is in a very nice nursing home in a nice part of mexico, their connection is very secretive but through some great investigative work, you find out who and where she is. The drug lord never leaves his heavily armed compound, but you have it on good intelligence that he loves his mother above all else and if something were to happen to her, there is a very good chance he either flips out and makes a tactical mistake in a rage, or becomes so saddened that he might leave the compound to attend her funeral, or otherwise make a tactical mistake out of pure sorrow.
There is no guarentee, but all of your experts say it is a 50% chance that killing his mother would result in either his apprehension or death. Do you murder an innocent old woman to potentially save many other innocent lives?
V[/quote]
No.
How is this a serious thought?
There is no sense of fair play here, not in this city or even in this state.
Those who money get away with shit all the time.
Just some of the scandals that have plagued the city and state…
The Los Angeles Mayor guilty of 30 ethics violations.
The governor lies to pass his High Speed Rail, which was promised to be $34 Billion, it will now cost nearly 10 times that.
Proposition 30 to raise taxes, which was promised to the schools, only 1/3 of it went to the schools.
The Los Angeles Cardinal Mahony who admits to covering up child molestation by priests, and avoids prosecution because the statute of limitations has passed.
Los Angeles Unified School District that never reported child molesting teachers to police, allowing a pervert to feed his students cookies with his semen on them, along with filming roaches crawling all over those same kids. The teacher was finally arrested, after 20 years of free reign, and he gets to keep his pension.
Passing taxes in the name of some kind of crisis, only to fund politician raises.
Schwarzen-failure commuting the sentence of a friend’s son, within the last hour of his governorship. No joke, Arnie signed the commutation a penis wrinkle before midnight of his last day in office.
A mandate signed by the Mayor, to have 1/3 of energy sources to come from renewables (green energy). This sounded all uber-cool and chic, but when energy prices are now 50% higher, the people are thinking that living in the era of the Jetsons is really nothing but a cartoon.
For a business owner who makes $1 million per year, he could save $130k by moving to a state with no income tax. Think about what keeping 130k in your pocket means, per year. Phil Mickelson got yelled at for voicing his opinion on taxes, the fucker pays $37.2 million in total taxes, out of a total of $60 million. I don’t care what anyone says, that’s a shit ton of money.
This is what happens when you have one party rule. For people who think a supermajority by either side is a good idea, think again. I would not want Republicans with this kind of power either. Gridlock is good, it means taxes usually don’t go up.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Here is a general question, and it is relative to the topic at hand. It is also a fictional scenario I just made up, so don’t try to debate the merits of if the tactic would work or not, lets just assume for the sake of the argument, the tactic would work.
You have a Mexican drug lord who runs a brutal regime, he is responsible for all sorts of evil. Kidnappings, murders, extortion, general terror, on and on and on.
Through some investigative work, you find out his mother is in a very nice nursing home in a nice part of mexico, their connection is very secretive but through some great investigative work, you find out who and where she is. The drug lord never leaves his heavily armed compound, but you have it on good intelligence that he loves his mother above all else and if something were to happen to her, there is a very good chance he either flips out and makes a tactical mistake in a rage, or becomes so saddened that he might leave the compound to attend her funeral, or otherwise make a tactical mistake out of pure sorrow.
There is no guarentee, but all of your experts say it is a 50% chance that killing his mother would result in either his apprehension or death. Do you murder an innocent old woman to potentially save many other innocent lives?
V[/quote]
No. I take her out for a nice seafood dinner and never call her again.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Here is a general question, and it is relative to the topic at hand. It is also a fictional scenario I just made up, so don’t try to debate the merits of if the tactic would work or not, lets just assume for the sake of the argument, the tactic would work.
You have a Mexican drug lord who runs a brutal regime, he is responsible for all sorts of evil. Kidnappings, murders, extortion, general terror, on and on and on.
Through some investigative work, you find out his mother is in a very nice nursing home in a nice part of mexico, their connection is very secretive but through some great investigative work, you find out who and where she is. The drug lord never leaves his heavily armed compound, but you have it on good intelligence that he loves his mother above all else and if something were to happen to her, there is a very good chance he either flips out and makes a tactical mistake in a rage, or becomes so saddened that he might leave the compound to attend her funeral, or otherwise make a tactical mistake out of pure sorrow.
There is no guarentee, but all of your experts say it is a 50% chance that killing his mother would result in either his apprehension or death. Do you murder an innocent old woman to potentially save many other innocent lives?
V[/quote]
No.
How is this a serious thought?
[/quote]
Agreed.
V - what you’re doing is called rationalization, and it’s a key component to just about every crime ever committed.
(side note - it’s also a side of the fraud triangle…accountants up in the house, yo!)
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Here is a general question, and it is relative to the topic at hand. It is also a fictional scenario I just made up, so don’t try to debate the merits of if the tactic would work or not, lets just assume for the sake of the argument, the tactic would work.
You have a Mexican drug lord who runs a brutal regime, he is responsible for all sorts of evil. Kidnappings, murders, extortion, general terror, on and on and on.
Through some investigative work, you find out his mother is in a very nice nursing home in a nice part of mexico, their connection is very secretive but through some great investigative work, you find out who and where she is. The drug lord never leaves his heavily armed compound, but you have it on good intelligence that he loves his mother above all else and if something were to happen to her, there is a very good chance he either flips out and makes a tactical mistake in a rage, or becomes so saddened that he might leave the compound to attend her funeral, or otherwise make a tactical mistake out of pure sorrow.
There is no guarentee, but all of your experts say it is a 50% chance that killing his mother would result in either his apprehension or death. Do you murder an innocent old woman to potentially save many other innocent lives?
V[/quote]
No.
How is this a serious thought?
[/quote]
Agreed.
V - what you’re doing is called rationalization, and it’s a key component to just about every crime ever committed.
(side note - it’s also a side of the fraud triangle…accountants up in the house, yo!)[/quote]
You goddamn accountants!!!
The root word of rationalization, is rational, so then yes, I am being rational. So you are saying it is wrong to kill one person to save a thousand? Is that what you are saying?
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
So you are saying it is wrong to kill one person to save a thousand? Is that what you are saying?
V[/quote]
But that isn’t what is happening here. That is what you WANT to be happening because you, rightfully so, hate the LAPD.
The truth of the matter is this is likely to make the lives of those that live in LA worse both short and long term. You have any idea the restrictions, laws and bullying that will come out of this?
This ends twice as bad as it starts, and cops shooting anyone in a pickup is pretty fucking bad.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Here is a general question, and it is relative to the topic at hand. It is also a fictional scenario I just made up, so don’t try to debate the merits of if the tactic would work or not, lets just assume for the sake of the argument, the tactic would work.
You have a Mexican drug lord who runs a brutal regime, he is responsible for all sorts of evil. Kidnappings, murders, extortion, general terror, on and on and on.
Through some investigative work, you find out his mother is in a very nice nursing home in a nice part of mexico, their connection is very secretive but through some great investigative work, you find out who and where she is. The drug lord never leaves his heavily armed compound, but you have it on good intelligence that he loves his mother above all else and if something were to happen to her, there is a very good chance he either flips out and makes a tactical mistake in a rage, or becomes so saddened that he might leave the compound to attend her funeral, or otherwise make a tactical mistake out of pure sorrow.
There is no guarentee, but all of your experts say it is a 50% chance that killing his mother would result in either his apprehension or death. Do you murder an innocent old woman to potentially save many other innocent lives?
V[/quote]
No.
How is this a serious thought?
[/quote]
Agreed.
V - what you’re doing is called rationalization, and it’s a key component to just about every crime ever committed.
(side note - it’s also a side of the fraud triangle…accountants up in the house, yo!)[/quote]
You goddamn accountants!!!
The root word of rationalization, is rational, so then yes, I am being rational. So you are saying it is wrong to kill one person to save a thousand? Is that what you are saying?
V[/quote]
Nice play on words. But you know I know you know what it means.
I am saying the murdering of 1 innocent person cannot be rationalized. It may be a nice thought to help you sleep at night, but that’s about all it is.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
So you are saying it is wrong to kill one person to save a thousand? Is that what you are saying?
V[/quote]
But that isn’t what is happening here. That is what you WANT to be happening because you, rightfully so, hate the LAPD.
The truth of the matter is this is likely to make the lives of those that live in LA worse both short and long term. You have any idea the restrictions, laws and bullying that will come out of this?
This ends twice as bad as it starts, and cops shooting anyone in a pickup is pretty fucking bad. [/quote]
Before the French Revolution policemen were hanged on street lights.
No police force on this planet has a chance if it operates like an occupying army.
Btw, V, I know what you’re getting at. You’re trying to come to some agreement that some “greater good” can come of all this.
You’re going out on a major stretch to try and prove your “greater good” principle, but even if we were in agreement that the principle was sound, we’re still light years away from proving this guy’s actions will actually result in the greater good you’re seeking.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
So you are saying it is wrong to kill one person to save a thousand? Is that what you are saying?
V[/quote]
But that isn’t what is happening here. That is what you WANT to be happening because you, rightfully so, hate the LAPD.
The truth of the matter is this is likely to make the lives of those that live in LA worse both short and long term. You have any idea the restrictions, laws and bullying that will come out of this?
This ends twice as bad as it starts, and cops shooting anyone in a pickup is pretty fucking bad. [/quote]
Before the French Revolution policemen were hanged on street lights.
No police force on this planet has a chance if it operates like an occupying army.
[/quote]
We are talking about LA here. Everyone is too busy trying to call everyone else racist, and lynch any rich person that isn’t a drug addict entertainer to actually work together.
Hense the police unchecked by civilian courts… I mean, because if the communitee could come together, they could solve this problem without violence.
(Yes, there is some flippant humor in there fellas, I know Cali isn’t all bad.)
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Btw, V, I know what you’re getting at. You’re trying to come to some agreement that some “greater good” can come of all this.
You’re going out on a major stretch to try and prove your “greater good” principle, but even if we were in agreement that the principle was sound, we’re still light years away from proving this guy’s actions will actually result in the greater good you’re seeking. [/quote]
If history is any judge, people in power know one language, and one language only, which is violence.
If this leads to more of it, if corrupt cops have to fear for their own lives, that might do some good.
You like civilization, you just dont like how the sausage is made.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Here is a general question, and it is relative to the topic at hand. It is also a fictional scenario I just made up, so don’t try to debate the merits of if the tactic would work or not, lets just assume for the sake of the argument, the tactic would work.
You have a Mexican drug lord who runs a brutal regime, he is responsible for all sorts of evil. Kidnappings, murders, extortion, general terror, on and on and on.
Through some investigative work, you find out his mother is in a very nice nursing home in a nice part of mexico, their connection is very secretive but through some great investigative work, you find out who and where she is. The drug lord never leaves his heavily armed compound, but you have it on good intelligence that he loves his mother above all else and if something were to happen to her, there is a very good chance he either flips out and makes a tactical mistake in a rage, or becomes so saddened that he might leave the compound to attend her funeral, or otherwise make a tactical mistake out of pure sorrow.
There is no guarentee, but all of your experts say it is a 50% chance that killing his mother would result in either his apprehension or death. Do you murder an innocent old woman to potentially save many other innocent lives?
V[/quote]
No.
How is this a serious thought?
[/quote]
I don’t think your government would agree with you. In fact, I think they would kill an innocent person for far less benefit, like say to silence them to prevent them exposing something they did wrong. So again I say, it’s fine for you to come out strong against this dorner cat, it really is, if it’s your opinion then fine. But if I do as lanky suggests and go over to PWI and post something about drone strikes being wrong for the same reason, I better not see you defending them.
I also agree, it is never right to kill an innocent person under any circumstances. I was just trying to see if anyone else did.
V
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Btw, V, I know what you’re getting at. You’re trying to come to some agreement that some “greater good” can come of all this.
You’re going out on a major stretch to try and prove your “greater good” principle, but even if we were in agreement that the principle was sound, we’re still light years away from proving this guy’s actions will actually result in the greater good you’re seeking. [/quote]
If history is any judge, people in power know one language, and one language only, which is violence.
If this leads to more of it, if corrupt cops have to fear for their own lives, that might do some good.
You like civilization, you just dont like how the sausage is made.
[/quote]
You’re adorable.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Btw, V, I know what you’re getting at. You’re trying to come to some agreement that some “greater good” can come of all this.
You’re going out on a major stretch to try and prove your “greater good” principle, but even if we were in agreement that the principle was sound, we’re still light years away from proving this guy’s actions will actually result in the greater good you’re seeking. [/quote]
If history is any judge, people in power know one language, and one language only, which is violence.
If this leads to more of it, if corrupt cops have to fear for their own lives, that might do some good.
You like civilization, you just dont like how the sausage is made.
[/quote]
You’re adorable. [/quote]
I know.
I am also right.
Try to be both at the same time and bow to my awesomeness.