You don’t want to disarm the cops - and in general, non-lethal force is preferable to the alternative.
The vids are your key - what needs to occur is that people pay attention to the use of force by police. It always helps if you (they) think someone might be watching…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The vids are your key - what needs to occur is that people pay attention to the use of force by police. It always helps if you (they) think someone might be watching…[/quote]
Spoken like a true big brother.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
JeffR wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Arc_1mpuls3 wrote:
Oh, in case you were wondering, without armed public servants, the strong would steal everything you owned.
JeffR
Becuase in every oher country that does NOT use armed regular police everyone is being raped and pilliged daily by nasty criminals with guns
It is because we have a 2nd amendment that the police force should be armed.
I’d rather arm the cops than disarm the citizenry. [/quote]
It’s because we have the 2nd Amendment that cops should be armed? scratches head How about it’s because criminals don’t follow the law that we should have our cops armed? The very reason we have the second amendment is because the .gov is armed. I don’t even think we’re really disagreeing on this point, but seeing it from that angle is really kind of creepy and betrays a seriously improper attitude about the purpose of governement. The honest citizens aren’t the bad guys.
Either way, the idea of not having the cops armed is plain silly and irresponsible for us to ask as citizens. But no cop should be better armed than a citizen.
mike
[quote]lixy wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
The vids are your key - what needs to occur is that people pay attention to the use of force by police. It always helps if you (they) think someone might be watching…
Spoken like a true big brother.[/quote]
To my knowledge, no one has been watched to death.
I’m not sure if this was BB’s intent but, the fact that the citizenry needs a right to privacy indicates a gov’t that is ungainly and out of control. It also establishes a citizenry that is, conceptually, guilty until proven innocent. The US hasn’t enjoyed any “Right to Privacy” for the majority of its history and even now, it’s a weird mutated selective “privacy”.
Funny that a Moroccan Swede would give to shits about Americans’ privacy.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
I’m not sure if this was BB’s intent but, the fact that the citizenry needs a right to privacy indicates a gov’t that is ungainly and out of control. It also establishes a citizenry that is, conceptually, guilty until proven innocent. The US hasn’t enjoyed any “Right to Privacy” for the majority of its history and even now, it’s a weird mutated selective “privacy”. [/quote]
Hmmm…I was under the impression that a “land of the free” would entail its inhabitants to some privacy. But you’re probably better informed than me about US history.
BB’s solution called for more cameras. That’s the road to an Orwellian society and I just pointed that out.
No, no, I’m not Swede anymore than Chusin is Japanese. The field says location not citizenship!
Anyway, I admire the spirit in which the US was founded and hold its constitution in high regard. It has been an inspiration for a lot of people, and talk of turning the place into CCTV-land should be condemned.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
lixy wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
The vids are your key - what needs to occur is that people pay attention to the use of force by police. It always helps if you (they) think someone might be watching…
Spoken like a true big brother.
To my knowledge, no one has been watched to death.
I’m not sure if this was BB’s intent but, the fact that the citizenry needs a right to privacy indicates a gov’t that is ungainly and out of control. It also establishes a citizenry that is, conceptually, guilty until proven innocent. The US hasn’t enjoyed any “Right to Privacy” for the majority of its history and even now, it’s a weird mutated selective “privacy”.
Funny that a Moroccan Swede would give to shits about Americans’ privacy. [/quote]
Dude, weed is illegal in most European countries because you started that shit.
Unfortunately the examples you set combined with some pressures om our spineless politicians habe consequences for other nations.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Hmmm…I was under the impression that a “land of the free” would entail its inhabitants to some privacy. But you’re probably better informed than me about US history.[/quote]
The “land of the free” referred more to a lack of government than my neighbors’ ability to deny me, my other neighbors, or the local police knowledge of what happens in our neighborhood, right next to our homes.
I guess I’m with BB on this one. What Big Brother knew wasn’t near as scary as how he acted on that knowledge or what he did to it or could do with it. Presuming I can’t control everything Big Brother knows and does, I’d rather control what Big Brother can do vs. what he can know.
I do as well, and I believe the spirit to be more of openness on all levels of sovereignty (citizenry and gov’t) rather than defending collusion and conspiracy. Reading the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the only time the word “private” is used is in relevance to the Gov’t. and refers strictly to property. Even the phrase “unreasonable search and seizure”, IMO, indicates the existence of a reasonable search.
[quote]orion wrote:
Dude, weed is illegal in most European countries because you started that shit.
Unfortunately the examples you set combined with some pressures om our spineless politicians habe consequences for other nations.[/quote]
This is the fault of your spineless politicians, not mine.
You’re bright enough to see the irony; either I and my gov’t have the “Right to Privacy” and you should butt out or you’re arguing that we should have the “Right to Privacy” and that you should butt out.
[quote]orion wrote:
Dude, weed is illegal in most European countries because you started that shit.
Unfortunately the examples you set combined with some pressures om our spineless politicians habe consequences for other nations.[/quote]
This is the fault of your spineless politicians, not mine.
You’re bright enough to see the irony; either I and my gov’t have the “Right to Privacy” and you should butt out or you’re arguing that we should have the “Right to Privacy” and that you should butt out.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
The vids are your key - what needs to occur is that people pay attention to the use of force by police. It always helps if you (they) think someone might be watching…
lixy wrote:
Spoken like a true big brother.[/quote]
Ironically, my little brother is a cop…
But you completely misinterpreted my point. It helps keep government in line of the citizenry is armed - with cameras. Between that and the viral nature of Youtube video, individual government actors should be aware that someone may be watching, and thus behave rationally.
[quote]lixy wrote:
BB’s solution called for more cameras. That’s the road to an Orwellian society and I just pointed that out.[/quote]
We already have them - on cell phones, pocket video cams, etc. I’m not talking about a city-wide system of governmental cameras a la London.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
But you completely misinterpreted my point. [/quote]
Yep. Guilty as charged.
I couldn’t divine what your position was though. Nice to have it cleared up.
Disarming the police–worked great for the U.K…
[quote]boatguy wrote:
Disarming the police–worked great for the U.K…[/quote]
The Uk never disarmed their police, what are you on about?
[quote]lucasa wrote:
orion wrote:
Dude, weed is illegal in most European countries because you started that shit.
Unfortunately the examples you set combined with some pressures om our spineless politicians habe consequences for other nations.
This is the fault of your spineless politicians, not mine.
You’re bright enough to see the irony; either I and my gov’t have the “Right to Privacy” and you should butt out or you’re arguing that we should have the “Right to Privacy” and that you should butt out.[/quote]
You do- Your government has no right to privacy whatsoever.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
It’s because we have the 2nd Amendment that cops should be armed? scratches head How about it’s because criminals don’t follow the law that we should have our cops armed? The very reason we have the second amendment is because the .gov is armed. I don’t even think we’re really disagreeing on this point, but seeing it from that angle is really kind of creepy and betrays a seriously improper attitude about the purpose of governement. The honest citizens aren’t the bad guys.
Either way, the idea of not having the cops armed is plain silly and irresponsible for us to ask as citizens. But no cop should be better armed than a citizen.
mike[/quote]
The point I was trying to make was that, because the public exercises their second amendment, there has been a proliferation of weapons in the the public sector. Criminals are part of the the public sector, and the will arm themselves by hook or by crook.
It is because of the armed criminals that the cops should be heavily armed.
I wasn’t attempting to provide any new insights.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
It’s because we have the 2nd Amendment that cops should be armed? scratches head How about it’s because criminals don’t follow the law that we should have our cops armed? The very reason we have the second amendment is because the .gov is armed. I don’t even think we’re really disagreeing on this point, but seeing it from that angle is really kind of creepy and betrays a seriously improper attitude about the purpose of governement. The honest citizens aren’t the bad guys.
Either way, the idea of not having the cops armed is plain silly and irresponsible for us to ask as citizens. But no cop should be better armed than a citizen.
mike
The point I was trying to make was that, because the public exercises their second amendment, there has been a proliferation of weapons in the the public sector. Criminals are part of the the public sector, and the will arm themselves by hook or by crook.
It is because of the armed criminals that the cops should be heavily armed.
I wasn’t attempting to provide any new insights. [/quote]
Cops have the right to be armed. Same as I do.
They also should be heavily scrutinized when they use their arms, just as I would be.
Meanwhile, more tasered people are dying…
http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/displayBreaking.htm?StoryID=67806
Police Brutality Update:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Police Brutality Update:
[/quote]
But is that actually police brutality? It seems more like police laziness. What is the solution lifty? Do you wish to have cops lose their tasers? I’m kind of on board with the spirit of where you guys are going but I think you take it too far.
In many cases a taser can be used instead of shooting him with a gun. That’s a good thing. But it seems that lots of cops are being lazy and resorting to the taser so they don’t have to get physical with a suspect. This is unacceptable and dangerous since a taser is more lethal than a wrestling match. It just doesn’t seem as if it is properly situated in the continuem of force. A quick attitude adjustment by way of lawsuits should get those departments in line.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
But it seems that lots of cops are being lazy and resorting to the taser so they don’t have to get physical with a suspect.[/quote]
Bingo! They’re just taking advantage of its ability to stop a perp’s movement so they can gain control. Its their first reaction instead of trying to physically restrain the perp with their own energy. It’s natural to resort to this path of least resistance. I do not contend that.
I question how police employ tasers and under what circumstances they do so. I am certain there is a breach in or lack of training in most of those instances where death has occurred.