This certainly isn’t good for police/citizen relations:
American shakedown: Police won’t charge you, but they’ll grab your money
[quote]Will207 wrote:
This certainly isn’t good for police/citizen relations:
American shakedown: Police won’t charge you, but they’ll grab your money
NEVER CONSENT TO ANYTHING-EVER. That sums up how citizens should deal with police. FIND OUT IF YOU’RE FREE TO GO(IF IT’S A TRAFFIC STOP, THEN YOU ARE NOT), IF YOU’RE NOT, THEN DO NOT TALK. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. PRODUCE YOUR DRIVER’S LICENSE, VEHICLE REGISTRATION, AND PROOF OF INSURANCE, BUT(I’m 99% certain this goes for the entire U.S.) NOTHING ELSE IS REQUIRED.
If the encounter is nothing more than passing a police officer in a store or something, and you’re absolutely positive that you’re free to go(and have not been drinking, don’t have any illegal substances nearby, etc.), then feel free to converse with the officer, but know that you can end the conversation and encounter at any time.
U.S. courts will still reject outright abuse of authority by police, for the most part. The U.S. may be very close to a police state, but it’s become that by way of indoctrination(D.A.R.E. programs, “the policeman is your friend,” etc.) and consent, not force. Make the police operate by law(probable cause) and don’t consent. The definition of “probable cause” certainly expands all the time, but don’t fight the expansion by allowing police/courts to ignore it altogether.
[quote]Will207 wrote:
This certainly isn’t good for police/citizen relations:
American shakedown: Police won’t charge you, but they’ll grab your money
Made a thread about WaPo’s investigative report
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…I admit that maybe my vision is somewhat skewed by what I see in the Middle East…of extremely weak Police Forces, with heavily armed Militias and individuals ruling like it’s the Wild West. That just isn’t something I would like to see…
[/quote]
Well, first…have you decided there is no difference between the character of the average Middle Easterner in the areas you are thinking of and the average American?[/quote]
Absolutely not…
There are HUGE differences in overall mindset and culture.
Mufasa
[/quote]
Exactly. That’s one of the reasons why even though the US is THE most heavily armed society in all of history we do not observe, “heavily armed Militias and individuals ruling like it’s the Wild West.”
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams[/quote]
John Adams was wrong as rulers are fundamentally immoral.
In terms of police: Likewise state police are immoral.
They are just people armed by oligarchs.
The moral position would be to be your own enforcer when it comes to defending yourself against the initiation of force.
The more difficult question is what do you do to defend others when being your own enforcer puts you directly in confrontation with the monopoly on force that is the police.
I’m not sure that there’s much you can do to protect those you love in that situation without risking death yourself.
Really tough situation.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
John Adams was wrong [/quote]
And… Under what authority do you make this claim, as it flies in the face of the overriding general opinion that he was in fact, correct that has stood the test of time?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
John Adams was wrong [/quote]
And… Under what authority do you make this claim, as it flies in the face of the overriding general opinion that he was in fact, correct that has stood the test of time?[/quote]
Authority?
I don’t know what you mean here.
The reason I gave was that rulers are fundamentally immoral.
Also…what do you mean by “overriding general opinion”? Opinions and “the test of time”, whatever that means, aren’t evidence.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
The reason I gave was that rulers are fundamentally immoral…
[/quote]
Are you implying that all men aren’t?
[/quote]
Men(humans i’m assuming you mean here, correct me if i’m wrong) are fundamentally neither moral or immoral, actions are moral, neutral(aesthetic) or immoral.
So having rulers(specifically the initiation of force to rule) is immoral.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Authority?
I don’t know what you mean here.[/quote]
Let me put it this way: can you source your disagreement with Adams? As in provide some sort of factual reference to prove his statement wrong.
Based on? Is this opinion? Do you have anything here other than the words you typed out?
Good point, seeing as you posted nothing but opinion, yet noticed me using opinion to disprove yours should be enlightening to you.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Authority?
I don’t know what you mean here.[/quote]
Let me put it this way: can you source your disagreement with Adams? As in provide some sort of factual reference to prove his statement wrong.
Based on? Is this opinion? Do you have anything here other than the words you typed out?
Good point, seeing as you posted nothing but opinion, yet noticed me using opinion to disprove yours should be enlightening to you.
[/quote]
I can, sure. How much time do you have to listen to it? It should take about 5-6 hours to go through a full proof of objective morality and apply it to rulers/governments.
It’s maybe 200 pages from my notes so id on’t think it will be appropriate here because of the length.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
I can, sure. How much time do you have to listen to it? It should take about 5-6 hours to go through a full proof of objective morality and apply it to rulers/governments.
It’s maybe 200 pages from my notes so id on’t think it will be appropriate here because of the length.[/quote]
Try me
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
The reason I gave was that rulers are fundamentally immoral…
[/quote]
Are you implying that all men aren’t?
[/quote]
lol, it’s pretty obvious he either didn’t bother to read the quote, or doesn’t understand it.
So his 80 hour proof of how people are immoral refuting a quote about people being immoral, and how the document won’t withstand that should be entertaining.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Will207 wrote:
This certainly isn’t good for police/citizen relations:
American shakedown: Police won’t charge you, but they’ll grab your money
NEVER CONSENT TO ANYTHING-EVER. That sums up how citizens should deal with police. FIND OUT IF YOU’RE FREE TO GO(IF IT’S A TRAFFIC STOP, THEN YOU ARE NOT), IF YOU’RE NOT, THEN DO NOT TALK. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. PRODUCE YOUR DRIVER’S LICENSE, VEHICLE REGISTRATION, AND PROOF OF INSURANCE, BUT(I’m 99% certain this goes for the entire U.S.) NOTHING ELSE IS REQUIRED.
If the encounter is nothing more than passing a police officer in a store or something, and you’re absolutely positive that you’re free to go(and have not been drinking, don’t have any illegal substances nearby, etc.), then feel free to converse with the officer, but know that you can end the conversation and encounter at any time.
U.S. courts will still reject outright abuse of authority by police, for the most part. The U.S. may be very close to a police state, but it’s become that by way of indoctrination(D.A.R.E. programs, “the policeman is your friend,” etc.) and consent, not force. Make the police operate by law(probable cause) and don’t consent. The definition of “probable cause” certainly expands all the time, but don’t fight the expansion by allowing police/courts to ignore it altogether.[/quote]
Hey Nick, forgive me but I can’t remember. What are your thoughts on “Fire-Hall” style policing? Are you on favor of it?
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Men(humans i’m assuming you mean here, correct me if i’m wrong) are fundamentally neither moral or immoral, actions are moral, neutral(aesthetic) or immoral.
[/quote]
Err…isn’t a man defined by what his actions? So if he behaves immorally then he’s immoral?
[quote]
So having rulers(specifically the initiation of force to rule) is immoral.[/quote]
“Having rulers” is not an action. What do you mean “having rulers” is immoral?
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
John Adams was wrong as rulers are fundamentally immoral.
[/quote]
See above. You already said men are not immoral - that only “actions” are immoral.
Police are “men” and you already said men are not immoral.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Authority?
I don’t know what you mean here.[/quote]
Let me put it this way: can you source your disagreement with Adams? As in provide some sort of factual reference to prove his statement wrong.
Based on? Is this opinion? Do you have anything here other than the words you typed out?
Good point, seeing as you posted nothing but opinion, yet noticed me using opinion to disprove yours should be enlightening to you.
[/quote]
I can, sure. How much time do you have to listen to it? It should take about 5-6 hours to go through a full proof of objective morality and apply it to rulers/governments.
It’s maybe 200 pages from my notes so id on’t think it will be appropriate here because of the length.[/quote]
I can prove Adams was right. But it will take me 5-6 hours and 200 pages from my notes so I don’t think it would be appropriate.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Will207 wrote:
This certainly isn’t good for police/citizen relations:
American shakedown: Police won’t charge you, but they’ll grab your money
NEVER CONSENT TO ANYTHING-EVER. That sums up how citizens should deal with police. FIND OUT IF YOU’RE FREE TO GO(IF IT’S A TRAFFIC STOP, THEN YOU ARE NOT), IF YOU’RE NOT, THEN DO NOT TALK. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. PRODUCE YOUR DRIVER’S LICENSE, VEHICLE REGISTRATION, AND PROOF OF INSURANCE, BUT(I’m 99% certain this goes for the entire U.S.) NOTHING ELSE IS REQUIRED.
If the encounter is nothing more than passing a police officer in a store or something, and you’re absolutely positive that you’re free to go(and have not been drinking, don’t have any illegal substances nearby, etc.), then feel free to converse with the officer, but know that you can end the conversation and encounter at any time.
U.S. courts will still reject outright abuse of authority by police, for the most part. The U.S. may be very close to a police state, but it’s become that by way of indoctrination(D.A.R.E. programs, “the policeman is your friend,” etc.) and consent, not force. Make the police operate by law(probable cause) and don’t consent. The definition of “probable cause” certainly expands all the time, but don’t fight the expansion by allowing police/courts to ignore it altogether.[/quote]
Hey Nick, forgive me but I can’t remember. What are your thoughts on “Fire-Hall” style policing? Are you on favor of it?
[/quote]
I am 100% in favor of it(of course, this style of policing would require that victimless crimes and violations be eliminated from the legal code)…with the obvious addition of detective work to identify offenders in the crimes to which police response is requested. “Service-style” policing may be a better description of my preferred style. In other words, I think that the closer to the style that would be expected with private funding, without violating the rights of the lower-class(it may be better to not send a police officer to the residences of mothers in the projects who are having difficulty convincing their 10-year olds to go to school, however), the better. A strict interpretation of the Constitution would likely result in such police work being the only kind permitted(again, that would also depend on citizens vigilantly protecting their rights). The problem almost always starts higher on the food chain than police officers, who, regardless of what many that have very few interactions with them think, are mostly decent individuals.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Will207 wrote:
This certainly isn’t good for police/citizen relations:
American shakedown: Police won’t charge you, but they’ll grab your money
NEVER CONSENT TO ANYTHING-EVER. That sums up how citizens should deal with police. FIND OUT IF YOU’RE FREE TO GO(IF IT’S A TRAFFIC STOP, THEN YOU ARE NOT), IF YOU’RE NOT, THEN DO NOT TALK. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. PRODUCE YOUR DRIVER’S LICENSE, VEHICLE REGISTRATION, AND PROOF OF INSURANCE, BUT(I’m 99% certain this goes for the entire U.S.) NOTHING ELSE IS REQUIRED.
If the encounter is nothing more than passing a police officer in a store or something, and you’re absolutely positive that you’re free to go(and have not been drinking, don’t have any illegal substances nearby, etc.), then feel free to converse with the officer, but know that you can end the conversation and encounter at any time.
U.S. courts will still reject outright abuse of authority by police, for the most part. The U.S. may be very close to a police state, but it’s become that by way of indoctrination(D.A.R.E. programs, “the policeman is your friend,” etc.) and consent, not force. Make the police operate by law(probable cause) and don’t consent. The definition of “probable cause” certainly expands all the time, but don’t fight the expansion by allowing police/courts to ignore it altogether.[/quote]
Hey Nick, forgive me but I can’t remember. What are your thoughts on “Fire-Hall” style policing? Are you on favor of it?
[/quote]
I am 100% in favor of it(of course, this style of policing would require that victimless crimes and violations be eliminated from the legal code)…with the obvious addition of detective work to identify offenders in the crimes to which police response is requested. “Service-style” policing may be a better description of my preferred style. In other words, I think that the closer to the style that would be expected with private funding, without violating the rights of the lower-class(it may be better to not send a police officer to the residences of mothers in the projects who are having difficulty convincing their 10-year olds to go to school, however), the better. A strict interpretation of the Constitution would likely result in such police work being the only kind permitted(again, that would also depend on citizens vigilantly protecting their rights). The problem almost always starts higher on the food chain than police officers, who, regardless of what many that have very few interactions with them think, are mostly decent individuals.[/quote]
I imagine that you tend to disagree with crimes against the state/society, favoring the police prosecuting crimes when there is a true victim (ie assault, rape, robbery, theft).
Is there any crimes against the state/society that you do favor or would endorse that is not currently on the books?