South Carolina Police Officer shoots unarmed man in the back as he flees.

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

The problem with police officers is that they are human. Humans with power over other humans. Generally speaking, that ends badly for the ones who don’t have the power. It is INEVITABLE.

Perhaps the use of ticketing vs arresting for non violent behavior would be a good idea? That way you could just pay the ticket or fight it in court. If Eric Garner would have just been handed a citation in the form of a ticket or a fine, that probably would have ended very differently.

I don’t know, I’m just throwing it out there. As most of you know, I’m no fan of the PoPo. And I don’t really see congress dismantling the bureaucracy that creates all these bullshit laws. I’m just trying to think outside the box to find a way to de-escalate the common encounters that having all these laws inevitably brings about.

Taking away the guns of cops would be a good start. That way they could have their jack booted thugs in a SWAT team ready to respond to the armed robbery, but officer friendly could take on the role of a civil SERVANT rather than trigger happy piece of shit.

Also, look at the difference between how this is being handled and how some of the other recent (legitimate, not Mike Brown) cases have been handled. When the cop actually faces, you know, JUSTICE when they do something wrong, people are a lot less pissed off.

If you are a cop and you fuck up and shoot an unarmed person, I DON’T GIVE A FUCK WHAT HE WAS REACHING FOR, you should be convicted of AT LEAST manslaughter and do your time just like every one else.

Also, if a private citizen is video taping an encounter, and the officer gets aggressive with the person taping, that guy doesn’t need to be an officer. Seriously. Get those assholes off the street. We have RIGHTS. And the police need to start respecting those rights.

Here is a nice little vid of the police doing what they do best: violating our rights. Why do we allow this to happen? Who the fuck do they think they are? Why don’t we demand consequences? Why are THEIR rights more important than OUR rights? In the age where every phone has a camera, why are they so fucking stupid?

And the most important question: if this is what they do ON camera, how are they acting OFF camera?

142

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
The problem with police officers is that they are human. Humans with power over other humans. Generally speaking, that ends badly for the ones who don’t have the power. It is INEVITABLE.

Perhaps the use of ticketing vs arresting for non violent behavior would be a good idea? That way you could just pay the ticket or fight it in court. If Eric Garner would have just been handed a citation in the form of a ticket or a fine, that probably would have ended very differently.

I don’t know, I’m just throwing it out there. As most of you know, I’m no fan of the PoPo. And I don’t really see congress dismantling the bureaucracy that creates all these bullshit laws. I’m just trying to think outside the box to find a way to de-escalate the common encounters that having all these laws inevitably brings about.

Taking away the guns of cops would be a good start. That way they could have their jack booted thugs in a SWAT team ready to respond to the armed robbery, but officer friendly could take on the role of a civil SERVANT rather than trigger happy piece of shit.

Also, look at the difference between how this is being handled and how some of the other recent (legitimate, not Mike Brown) cases have been handled. When the cop actually faces, you know, JUSTICE when they do something wrong, people are a lot less pissed off.

If you are a cop and you fuck up and shoot an unarmed person, I DON’T GIVE A FUCK WHAT HE WAS REACHING FOR, you should be convicted of AT LEAST manslaughter and do your time just like every one else.

Also, if a private citizen is video taping an encounter, and the officer gets aggressive with the person taping, that guy doesn’t need to be an officer. Seriously. Get those assholes off the street. We have RIGHTS. And the police need to start respecting those rights.

Here is a nice little vid of the police doing what they do best: violating our rights. Why do we allow this to happen? Who the fuck do they think they are? Why don’t we demand consequences? Why are THEIR rights more important than OUR rights? In the age where every phone has a camera, why are they so fucking stupid?

And the most important question: if this is what they do ON camera, how are they acting OFF camera?

[/quote]

You make an interesting point about cops not having guns. Problem obviously though and what most people would say is that because of the legality of guns in the U.S and the availability a lot of cops would either die or not be able to help is situations where people are armed and hurting other people.

Waiting for SWAT seems like it would leave an awful lot of time for the criminal to kill someone and run away and the unarmed officers on scene wouldn’t be able to adequately follow.

Or would it be like 50% unarmed, 50% armed response units?

143

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
I thought the law only allowed police to shoot unarmed people fleeing from certain felony crimes. It is absolutely not written into law that cops are supposed to ramp up their actions leading up to and including shooting an unarmed man stopped for a broken light.

A good cop is someone who follows the law and does not shoot unarmed people for crimes the law does not allow the shooting of. I do get where you are coming from though.[/quote]

Police officers are not permitted to shoot people fleeing from any particular type of crime(and it’s usually harder to justify shooting an unarmed individual). There is no black-and-white standard. Police shootings are almost always a gray area.

144

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Murder for a police officer is legally not the same as murder for everyone else. [/quote]

Sure it is.

[quote]
You could be detained for selling raw milk or for running a lemonade stand without a license and if you resist enough(which is completely moral to do with anyone else trying to detain you) and they will escalate until they kill you. [/quote]

Hyperbole aside, we give the police the authority to enforce the law. That’s kinda the point.

[quote]
Police officers aren’t some kind of magical people that somehow can initiate force without expecting an escalation of violence. [/quote]

Well ya, they kind are…

[quote]
The only “good” cop is one that doesn’t ever enforce non-violent “crimes”, which is exactly ZERO cops. [/quote]

Lol, whut? It’s an officers job to enforce The Law, not some of the laws they think are good to go. Blame your state government and/or Congress. They’re the ones that pass the laws, even the dumb ones.

[quote]

You cannot be a cop without being EXPECTED to commit assault and murder eventually, because enforcing most laws will eventually lead to someone escalating to that point in self-defense.[/quote]

You’ve got an interesting outlook on life… [/quote]

You cannot commit homicide other than in certain instances of self defense without it being criminal. [/quote]

You most certainly can. The initiation of deadly force is authorized, under certain circumstance, for individuals and certain groups unrelated to self defense.

[quote]
A police officer can detain/assault a person for selling raw milk(or any other voluntary non-violent transaction/activity that is banned) and then kill them for acting in self defense. [/quote]

Raw milk laws are not law enforcement concern. That is a legislative matter. Police officers have been granted, by us, the legal use of deadly force when a citizen resists arrest. That is also a legislative matter.

Resisting arrest =/= self defense.

[quote]
If you believe someone is wrong for selling raw milk and you did the same, you would be tried for murder. The police officer will not. [/quote]

If I believe is a law is unlawful I would take it up with law makers and the judicial branch. I wouldn’t resist, in most case, the enforcement officers who are authorized to use deadly force when warranted.

[quote]
It’s not Hyperbole,[/quote]

Am I unaware of a lemonade stand citation turning into a use of deadly force occurrence? Please link, I;d love to read about.

[quote]
police can and HAVE in fact arrested/fined people for selling raw milk and threatened arrest/fines for little girls in several cases selling lemonade without a license. [/quote]

I get it, you don’t like the laws against these things. I tend to agree. That is still a legislative matter. It is not law enforcement job, thank God, to determine which laws are just and which laws are not.

[quote]
WE don’t GIVE the police ANYTHING. [/quote]

Yes, we do.

[quote]
How can you possibly GIVE the police the authority to do something you as an individual cannot do? [/quote]

We have collectively give the executive branch(s) of our government the ability to enforce laws the legislative branch(s) have created. That’s how.

[quote]
And don’t give me the democracy bullshit. [/quote]

Well, we don’t live in the People Republic of Magic Thoughts now do we?

[quote]
A collective doesn’t magically gain the rights an individual doesn’t have. that argument defeats all individual right for the rights of the majority. [/quote]

You could argue the enforcement of laws ratified by the collective is an extension of individual rights.

[quote]
And NO…limits through checks and balances don’t make any difference because once certain people have a monopoly on the initiation of force they have always and will always used it to manipulate the language to circumvent those checks. [/quote]

So, human nature. Good luck changing that. The balance of power can change and has numerous times thought out history. If you don’t like it, change it.

[quote]
You don’t seriously believe police officers are magical do you? [/quote]

No I don’t think they’re fucking magical.

[quote]
NO I’m going to blame you and others who support those laws by participating(legitimizing) the voting process and further speaking out in the support of ANY initiation of force which makes it possible for politicians to do what they do instead of being ostracized like the sociopaths they are.[/quote]

Okay, do whatever you want. It’s a free country because of those so called illegitimate institutions initiating force in your name so you can cry about it on the internet.

145

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
The problem with police officers is that they are human. Humans with power over other humans. Generally speaking, that ends badly for the ones who don’t have the power. It is INEVITABLE.

Perhaps the use of ticketing vs arresting for non violent behavior would be a good idea? That way you could just pay the ticket or fight it in court. If Eric Garner would have just been handed a citation in the form of a ticket or a fine, that probably would have ended very differently.

I don’t know, I’m just throwing it out there. As most of you know, I’m no fan of the PoPo. And I don’t really see congress dismantling the bureaucracy that creates all these bullshit laws. I’m just trying to think outside the box to find a way to de-escalate the common encounters that having all these laws inevitably brings about.

Taking away the guns of cops would be a good start. That way they could have their jack booted thugs in a SWAT team ready to respond to the armed robbery, but officer friendly could take on the role of a civil SERVANT rather than trigger happy piece of shit.

Also, look at the difference between how this is being handled and how some of the other recent (legitimate, not Mike Brown) cases have been handled. When the cop actually faces, you know, JUSTICE when they do something wrong, people are a lot less pissed off.

If you are a cop and you fuck up and shoot an unarmed person, I DON’T GIVE A FUCK WHAT HE WAS REACHING FOR, you should be convicted of AT LEAST manslaughter and do your time just like every one else.

Also, if a private citizen is video taping an encounter, and the officer gets aggressive with the person taping, that guy doesn’t need to be an officer. Seriously. Get those assholes off the street. We have RIGHTS. And the police need to start respecting those rights.

Here is a nice little vid of the police doing what they do best: violating our rights. Why do we allow this to happen? Who the fuck do they think they are? Why don’t we demand consequences? Why are THEIR rights more important than OUR rights? In the age where every phone has a camera, why are they so fucking stupid?

And the most important question: if this is what they do ON camera, how are they acting OFF camera?

[/quote]

Agree for the most part.

146

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
Waiting for SWAT seems like it would leave an awful lot of time for the criminal to kill someone and run away and the unarmed officers on scene wouldn’t be able to adequately follow.
[/quote]

Wouldn’t be as much of an issue if people were armed.

147

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
The only “good” cop is one that doesn’t ever enforce non-violent “crimes”, which is exactly ZERO cops.

You cannot be a cop without being EXPECTED to commit assault and murder eventually, because enforcing most laws will eventually lead to someone escalating to that point in self-defense.[/quote]

I see no reason for that standard. A police officer can certainly enforce traffic laws without being “bad,” in my opinion. A police officer can even enforce drug laws without being “bad,” in my opinion. I see no reason that an officer who pulls someone over and writes that person a ticket for X(running a stop sign, exceeding the posted speed limit, etc.) is necessarily bad. Now, if the driver’s driving behavior gets worse(speed increases, etc.) once the officer turns on his blue lights, and the officer doesn’t end his pursuit at that point…I can see calling him “bad.”

If an officer wants to arrest/summons folks for possessing certain substances that are known to be illegal, I don’t think he’s necessarily “bad.” If that officer always relies on consent to search being granted, I see no reason to call him “bad.” The problems come when that officer starts performing non-consensual searches.

If a person consents, he recognizes the law as legitimate.

148

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
Waiting for SWAT seems like it would leave an awful lot of time for the criminal to kill someone and run away and the unarmed officers on scene wouldn’t be able to adequately follow.
[/quote]

Wouldn’t be as much of an issue if people were armed. [/quote]

I am genuinely all for the right to own firearms but I never understood this position entirely. In democratic nations where people can’t own guns they have far less crimes committed by people with guns. I would be interested in seeing some evidence that an armed society is a polite society.

I have seen some statistics that would indicate you are right but they don’t take into account things like poverty in the areas where guns are more freely available and places where gun control is tighter.

For example someone might say an armed population means less crime and refer to higher gun crime in NY where gun control is tight and compare it to the middle of Idaho where gun crime is lower. For obvious reasons this is flawed because it ignores environmental influences on crime and takes the correlating statistics that match the hypothesis.

I would be interested in hearing more about this because it is something I have always wondered if I agree with it or not. For example say guns were made legal in Scotland to the extent they are in the U.S, would gun crime in Scotland go up or down?

149

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
Waiting for SWAT seems like it would leave an awful lot of time for the criminal to kill someone and run away and the unarmed officers on scene wouldn’t be able to adequately follow.
[/quote]

Wouldn’t be as much of an issue if people were armed. [/quote]

I am genuinely all for the right to own firearms but I never understood this position entirely. [/quote]

Think about it this way. You’re a thief casing two house. Both are identical, same layout, same number of people living there, etc… Except the mother and father of one of the houses goes shooting every Saturday. Which house do you select?

It’s the same principle for the most part. If more law abiding citizens are armed, concealed or otherwise, my opinion is crime rates will go down.

Push wrote this in another thread and I’d say it fits nicely with my point:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

“The Gun Is Civilization” by Maj. L.
Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If
you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me
via argument, or force me to-do your bidding under threat of force. Every human
interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason
or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through
persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the
only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as
paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason
and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or
employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal
footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a
19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of
drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical
strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force
equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all
guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed]
mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential
victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no
validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young,
the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society.
A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society
where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that
otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several
ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior
party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’ t constitute lethal
force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a
bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works
solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are
armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as
it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a
force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because
I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced,
only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me
to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with
me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It
removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized
act.
[/quote]

[quote]
In democratic nations where people can’t own guns they have far less crimes committed by people with guns. [/quote]

Sure, because guns aren’t available. However, What do their crime rates look like with weapons other than guns? How free are they?

A lot of evidence has been posted on here in the past. I don’t have any links saved though.

There was a U.N. study posted on here a while back that corroborated this. I’ll have to see if I can find it.

I’ve said on here before that socieconomic issues are a very intricate part of this discussion. Guns are just tools. Knives, home made explosives, baseball bats, etc… can all be used to create the same outcome. Guns are just more efficient.

150

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Murder for a police officer is legally not the same as murder for everyone else. [/quote]

Sure it is.

[quote]
You could be detained for selling raw milk or for running a lemonade stand without a license and if you resist enough(which is completely moral to do with anyone else trying to detain you) and they will escalate until they kill you. [/quote]

Hyperbole aside, we give the police the authority to enforce the law. That’s kinda the point.

[quote]
Police officers aren’t some kind of magical people that somehow can initiate force without expecting an escalation of violence. [/quote]

Well ya, they kind are…

[quote]
The only “good” cop is one that doesn’t ever enforce non-violent “crimes”, which is exactly ZERO cops. [/quote]

Lol, whut? It’s an officers job to enforce The Law, not some of the laws they think are good to go. Blame your state government and/or Congress. They’re the ones that pass the laws, even the dumb ones.

[quote]

You cannot be a cop without being EXPECTED to commit assault and murder eventually, because enforcing most laws will eventually lead to someone escalating to that point in self-defense.[/quote]

You’ve got an interesting outlook on life… [/quote]

You cannot commit homicide other than in certain instances of self defense without it being criminal. [/quote]

You most certainly can. The initiation of deadly force is authorized, under certain circumstance, for individuals and certain groups unrelated to self defense.

[quote]
A police officer can detain/assault a person for selling raw milk(or any other voluntary non-violent transaction/activity that is banned) and then kill them for acting in self defense. [/quote]

Raw milk laws are not law enforcement concern. That is a legislative matter. Police officers have been granted, by us, the legal use of deadly force when a citizen resists arrest. That is also a legislative matter.

Resisting arrest =/= self defense.

[quote]
If you believe someone is wrong for selling raw milk and you did the same, you would be tried for murder. The police officer will not. [/quote]

If I believe is a law is unlawful I would take it up with law makers and the judicial branch. I wouldn’t resist, in most case, the enforcement officers who are authorized to use deadly force when warranted.

[quote]
It’s not Hyperbole,[/quote]

Am I unaware of a lemonade stand citation turning into a use of deadly force occurrence? Please link, I;d love to read about.

[quote]
police can and HAVE in fact arrested/fined people for selling raw milk and threatened arrest/fines for little girls in several cases selling lemonade without a license. [/quote]

I get it, you don’t like the laws against these things. I tend to agree. That is still a legislative matter. It is not law enforcement job, thank God, to determine which laws are just and which laws are not.

[quote]
WE don’t GIVE the police ANYTHING. [/quote]

Yes, we do.

[quote]
How can you possibly GIVE the police the authority to do something you as an individual cannot do? [/quote]

We have collectively give the executive branch(s) of our government the ability to enforce laws the legislative branch(s) have created. That’s how.

[quote]
And don’t give me the democracy bullshit. [/quote]

Well, we don’t live in the People Republic of Magic Thoughts now do we?

[quote]
A collective doesn’t magically gain the rights an individual doesn’t have. that argument defeats all individual right for the rights of the majority. [/quote]

You could argue the enforcement of laws ratified by the collective is an extension of individual rights.

[quote]
And NO…limits through checks and balances don’t make any difference because once certain people have a monopoly on the initiation of force they have always and will always used it to manipulate the language to circumvent those checks. [/quote]

So, human nature. Good luck changing that. The balance of power can change and has numerous times thought out history. If you don’t like it, change it.

[quote]
You don’t seriously believe police officers are magical do you? [/quote]

No I don’t think they’re fucking magical.

[quote]
NO I’m going to blame you and others who support those laws by participating(legitimizing) the voting process and further speaking out in the support of ANY initiation of force which makes it possible for politicians to do what they do instead of being ostracized like the sociopaths they are.[/quote]

Okay, do whatever you want. It’s a free country because of those so called illegitimate institutions initiating force in your name so you can cry about it on the internet. [/quote]

Where is the contract I or You signed authorizing any kind of “special” use of force by certain individuals?

Governments are in fact just magical thoughts where people are deluded into believing that such a contract was ever signed by anyone that is subject to the monopoly on force the government and police have.

Further, you can’t make a universal statement out of this because clearly if any group of individuals made AN ACTUAL competing contract for their own law enforcement agency with the authorization to use special force, they would immediately be destroyed by the police.

There is no “social contract”. That is pure fantasy. The reality is that every individual only has 2 choices: Comply with the pre-existing monopoly on force or don’t comply and be assaulted, caged, or murdered.

151

I am distrustful of facts and statistics posted by both sides of the gun debate. At the end of the day, however, the statistics don’t matter that much to me because you shouldn’t be allowed to trump self-defense rights with statistics or by pointing to the mis-use of those rights by others.

153

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Murder for a police officer is legally not the same as murder for everyone else. [/quote]

Sure it is.

[quote]
You could be detained for selling raw milk or for running a lemonade stand without a license and if you resist enough(which is completely moral to do with anyone else trying to detain you) and they will escalate until they kill you. [/quote]

Hyperbole aside, we give the police the authority to enforce the law. That’s kinda the point.

[quote]
Police officers aren’t some kind of magical people that somehow can initiate force without expecting an escalation of violence. [/quote]

Well ya, they kind are…

[quote]
The only “good” cop is one that doesn’t ever enforce non-violent “crimes”, which is exactly ZERO cops. [/quote]

Lol, whut? It’s an officers job to enforce The Law, not some of the laws they think are good to go. Blame your state government and/or Congress. They’re the ones that pass the laws, even the dumb ones.

[quote]

You cannot be a cop without being EXPECTED to commit assault and murder eventually, because enforcing most laws will eventually lead to someone escalating to that point in self-defense.[/quote]

You’ve got an interesting outlook on life… [/quote]

You cannot commit homicide other than in certain instances of self defense without it being criminal. [/quote]

You most certainly can. The initiation of deadly force is authorized, under certain circumstance, for individuals and certain groups unrelated to self defense.

[quote]
A police officer can detain/assault a person for selling raw milk(or any other voluntary non-violent transaction/activity that is banned) and then kill them for acting in self defense. [/quote]

Raw milk laws are not law enforcement concern. That is a legislative matter. Police officers have been granted, by us, the legal use of deadly force when a citizen resists arrest. That is also a legislative matter.

Resisting arrest =/= self defense.

[quote]
If you believe someone is wrong for selling raw milk and you did the same, you would be tried for murder. The police officer will not. [/quote]

If I believe is a law is unlawful I would take it up with law makers and the judicial branch. I wouldn’t resist, in most case, the enforcement officers who are authorized to use deadly force when warranted.

[quote]
It’s not Hyperbole,[/quote]

Am I unaware of a lemonade stand citation turning into a use of deadly force occurrence? Please link, I;d love to read about.

[quote]
police can and HAVE in fact arrested/fined people for selling raw milk and threatened arrest/fines for little girls in several cases selling lemonade without a license. [/quote]

I get it, you don’t like the laws against these things. I tend to agree. That is still a legislative matter. It is not law enforcement job, thank God, to determine which laws are just and which laws are not.

[quote]
WE don’t GIVE the police ANYTHING. [/quote]

Yes, we do.

[quote]
How can you possibly GIVE the police the authority to do something you as an individual cannot do? [/quote]

We have collectively give the executive branch(s) of our government the ability to enforce laws the legislative branch(s) have created. That’s how.

[quote]
And don’t give me the democracy bullshit. [/quote]

Well, we don’t live in the People Republic of Magic Thoughts now do we?

[quote]
A collective doesn’t magically gain the rights an individual doesn’t have. that argument defeats all individual right for the rights of the majority. [/quote]

You could argue the enforcement of laws ratified by the collective is an extension of individual rights.

[quote]
And NO…limits through checks and balances don’t make any difference because once certain people have a monopoly on the initiation of force they have always and will always used it to manipulate the language to circumvent those checks. [/quote]

So, human nature. Good luck changing that. The balance of power can change and has numerous times thought out history. If you don’t like it, change it.

[quote]
You don’t seriously believe police officers are magical do you? [/quote]

No I don’t think they’re fucking magical.

[quote]
NO I’m going to blame you and others who support those laws by participating(legitimizing) the voting process and further speaking out in the support of ANY initiation of force which makes it possible for politicians to do what they do instead of being ostracized like the sociopaths they are.[/quote]

Okay, do whatever you want. It’s a free country because of those so called illegitimate institutions initiating force in your name so you can cry about it on the internet. [/quote]

Where is the contract I or You signed authorizing any kind of “special” use of force by certain individuals? [/quote]

Are you a U.S. citizen? Do you have a social security number? Your parents signed it for you, their parents signed it for them, so on and so forth all the way back to 1776.

You don’t like it, it’s up to you to leave.

[quote]
Governments are in fact just magical thoughts where people are deluded into believing that such a contract was ever signed by anyone that is subject to the monopoly on force the government and police have. [/quote]

That’s called reality.

[quote]
Further, you can’t make a universal statement out of this because clearly if any group of individuals made AN ACTUAL competing contract for their own law enforcement agency with the authorization to use special force, they would immediately be destroyed by the police. [/quote]

Because we the people have already established who gets to have that authority.

[quote]
There is no “social contract”. That is pure fantasy. The reality is that every individual only has 2 choices: Comply with the pre-existing monopoly on force or don’t comply and be assaulted, caged, or murdered.[/quote]

AKA the social contract.

I hear Somalia is nice this year, you should move there.

154

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
I am distrustful of facts and statistics posted by both sides of the gun debate. At the end of the day, however, the statistics don’t matter that much to me because you shouldn’t be allowed to trump self-defense rights with statistics or by pointing to the mis-use of those rights by others.[/quote]

Agreed.

155

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
The problem with police officers is that they are human. Humans with power over other humans. Generally speaking, that ends badly for the ones who don’t have the power. It is INEVITABLE.

Perhaps the use of ticketing vs arresting for non violent behavior would be a good idea? That way you could just pay the ticket or fight it in court. If Eric Garner would have just been handed a citation in the form of a ticket or a fine, that probably would have ended very differently.

I don’t know, I’m just throwing it out there. As most of you know, I’m no fan of the PoPo. And I don’t really see congress dismantling the bureaucracy that creates all these bullshit laws. I’m just trying to think outside the box to find a way to de-escalate the common encounters that having all these laws inevitably brings about.

Taking away the guns of cops would be a good start. That way they could have their jack booted thugs in a SWAT team ready to respond to the armed robbery, but officer friendly could take on the role of a civil SERVANT rather than trigger happy piece of shit.

Also, look at the difference between how this is being handled and how some of the other recent (legitimate, not Mike Brown) cases have been handled. When the cop actually faces, you know, JUSTICE when they do something wrong, people are a lot less pissed off.

If you are a cop and you fuck up and shoot an unarmed person, I DON’T GIVE A FUCK WHAT HE WAS REACHING FOR, you should be convicted of AT LEAST manslaughter and do your time just like every one else.

Also, if a private citizen is video taping an encounter, and the officer gets aggressive with the person taping, that guy doesn’t need to be an officer. Seriously. Get those assholes off the street. We have RIGHTS. And the police need to start respecting those rights.

Here is a nice little vid of the police doing what they do best: violating our rights. Why do we allow this to happen? Who the fuck do they think they are? Why don’t we demand consequences? Why are THEIR rights more important than OUR rights? In the age where every phone has a camera, why are they so fucking stupid?

And the most important question: if this is what they do ON camera, how are they acting OFF camera?

[/quote]

You’re right man. Power corrupts everyone and just just the “bad cops” or the "
bad politicians".
As you said, in a free society their would still be people hired to mediate and to protect others, but they would actually be REAL contracts and not some fantasy bullshit. Also, they would be far less likely to use deadly force to resolve matters that could be resolved with fines or ostracision.

Eventually people will get this and governments will be as anachronistic to people as slavery is now.

156

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
I am distrustful of facts and statistics posted by both sides of the gun debate. At the end of the day, however, the statistics don’t matter that much to me because you shouldn’t be allowed to trump self-defense rights with statistics or by pointing to the mis-use of those rights by others.[/quote]

Agreed. [/quote]

x2

Although I would say just to go back to Usmccds423 said about yes countries with gun control might have less crime but may have more crime without weapons or with other weapons, the result of having to use knives or fists in crimes means far less people die because of those crimes.

I am all for individual freedoms and the constitutional right to own firearms not being torn down because some people abuse those rights and freedoms, but I do think it is critical to acknowledge that societies without guns are safer because of it. More people might be stabbed or punched and mugged etc but the fact is guns are far more effective at killing and killing lots of people than one guy with a knife is.

When someone goes on a rampage in China and stabs 30 kids in a school no one dies. When a teenager in America goes on one dozens can die very quickly. But then again America is far more prepared to defend its rights from a totalitarian government than unarmed civilians in other nations are.

This is a tough and as you said intricate topic.

157

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Also, they would be far less likely to use deadly force to resolve matters that could be resolved with fines or ostracision. [/quote]

You’re basing this on what?

[quote]
Eventually people will get this and governments will be as anachronistic to people as slavery is now.[/quote]

I doubt it. There will always be a hierarchy of some kind. It’s 100% natural.

158

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Eventually people will get this and governments will be as anachronistic to people as slavery is now.[/quote]

No, eventually people will realize that the two are the same, and it will have to be renamed again. Everytime more freedom is promised, less freedom results.

159

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Also, they would be far less likely to use deadly force to resolve matters that could be resolved with fines or ostracision. [/quote]

You’re basing this on what?

[quote]
Eventually people will get this and governments will be as anachronistic to people as slavery is now.[/quote]

I doubt it. There will always be a hierarchy of some kind. It’s 100% natural.[/quote]

I would agree with you it is natural but so was rape and murder. Almost every species forces sex and kills yet in most civilised nations it is outlawed. I don’t see hierarchal structures disappearing anytime soon but we do outlaw and try and remove other natural behaviour for the greater good so it is possible Hierarchy could be removed too.

160

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
I am distrustful of facts and statistics posted by both sides of the gun debate. At the end of the day, however, the statistics don’t matter that much to me because you shouldn’t be allowed to trump self-defense rights with statistics or by pointing to the mis-use of those rights by others.[/quote]

Agreed. [/quote]

x2

Although I would say just to go back to Usmccds423 said about yes countries with gun control might have less crime but may have more crime without weapons or with other weapons, the result of having to use knives or fists in crimes means far less people die because of those crimes. [/quote]

Not necessarily. A knife doesn’t run out of ammo. An explosion can end / ruin more lives than a gun. It’s about circumstances and opportunity. Not just which tool is used to get the job done.

[quote]
I am all for individual freedoms and the constitutional right to own firearms not being torn down because some people abuse those rights and freedoms, but I do think it is critical to acknowledge that societies without guns are safer because of it. [/quote]

Again though, this is not a proven fact.

[quote]
More people might be stabbed or punched and mugged etc but the fact is guns are far more effective at killing and killing lots of people than one guy with a knife is. [/quote]

I think that’s a logical fallacy as I stated above. Also, look at the flip side. Guns can be just as effective maximizing the number of lives saved in a hostile situation. They can be used as a deterrent to avoid a hostile situation altogether.

[quote]
When someone goes on a rampage in China and stabs 30 kids in a school no one dies.[/quote]

Luckily.

[quote]
When a teenager in America goes on one dozens can die very quickly. [/quote]

Yes, and that’s tragic. Again though, guns are just the tools used by a sick person to commit an atrocity.

“The Bath School disaster was a series of violent attacks perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe on May 18, 1927, in Bath Township, Michigan, that killed 38 elementary school children and six adults and injured at least 58 other people.[Note 1] Kehoe first killed his wife, firebombed his farm, and detonated a major explosion in the Bath Consolidated School, before committing suicide by detonating a final explosion in his truck. It is currently the deadliest mass murder to take place at a school in United States history.[1][2]”

[quote]
But then again America is far more prepared to defend its rights from a totalitarian government than unarmed civilians in other nations are. [/quote]

An important function of guns in any society.

Agreed.