Tasers: Enemy of the Free

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
What makes a junkie dangerous is the fact that he will break into my home while my family is still there because he’s desperate to get money to feed him habit.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike cops. The fact that they are primarily out there to enforce mala prohibitum laws is the best one. I too agree that cops do more harm than good. But to claim that they do zero good is crazy.
[/quote]

First, I do not dis-like cops in general. I dis-like the authority they wield. I dislike the fact that State employment gives someone the Instant Patriotic Credibility. I dislike the fact that many people find themselves in a law enforcement career purely because they love the idea of authority.

But really, no cop is going to protect you from crime. They only show up to clean up the evidence and then catch the crook after the fact. They can’t prevent crime. And they can’t protect you. You have to protect yourself. That is also part of one’s responsibility as a free man. It isn’t a task that should be monopolized to the government because they don’t really have anyone’s best interest, other than their own, at heart.

122

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
lixy wrote:
More gratuitous tasering…

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fae_1195587967&p=1

Dirty fucking pig!!

That guy was an idiot. Why did he get out of the car? Why did he have his hand by his pocket like that? It looked like he was going to pull a gun on the cop.

I have seen enough videos where some guy pulls a gun in the same situation that I understand his actions.

Messing with cops and not following their simple instructions is like playing with fire.[/quote]

That guy really was an idiot. I agree 100%. I haven’t watched many taser videos but I’ve seen a few and that’s generally what happens.

The solution is simple. You follow orders whether you think you are right or wrong. When a guy can’t follow simple directions he might as well be as fucked up in the head as any junkie only he’s resisting knowingly in this case. Saying that cop is a pig is riduclous. That douchebag should’ve followed instructions since the sooner he complies the sooner he could pass through all the procedures and start explaining himself.

Let the cop do his thing and then explain if you are able to. If you’re ignored or not given a chance to speak and you feel you were unfairly treated, take it up with whoever is available afterwards. If that guy was really so submissive and innocent he would’ve simply followed the officer instead of trying to play Ghandi. The first thing he did was resist whether he was passive or not. The officer might have seemed hasty but when other guy is walking around with a hand partially reaching into his pocket despite being told not to his reposnse becomes very understandable.

If this didn’t happen and the “victim” stayed in car the officer probably would’ve had to talk to him for half an hour then tazer or physically subdue him. Either way the girl would’ve freaked out and guy would’ve sued for harassment. “Oh no he chafed my skin with his big muscly beat cop arms!”

123

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
No, he got tasered for not following directions and acting in a suspicious hostile manner.

Yeah, like the family (mom, dad and baby) that got shot at hundred times because their car got too close (about a yard) to the Blackwater vehicle.

I can recall you rooting for the poor helpless American contractors…[/quote]

Right, the car that could have just as easily contained a child carefully wrapped with explosives by his mother. This kind of thing has happened, but you always act as if the police or Blackwater have no reason to suspect any Muslim in the Middle East as being a threat. Damn dude, it happens all the time. They have good reason to be suspicious and good reason to act on that given the situation.

124

Cops and tasers aren’t the problem. Legislators and their laws are. It is the confrontations forced upon law officers and perps because of laws meant to police victimless crimes. Oh sure, people could refuse to join the force.

However, who would volunteer the bulk of their adult life catching the rapist, murderer, robber, and con-man? Who would respond to domestic violence calls and other crimes in progress? A lynch mob of private citizens? A vigilante? Bat-man?

By far, I respect the police officers of this nation. I do not respect the legislators, and ultimately the citizens, who saddled such a noble proffession with duties so contrary to personal liberty and responsibility.

Tasers don’t need to be removed. Police officers don’t need their side arms yanked. Laws need to be struck down, and their duties refocused on solving crimes where an actual victim is involved. That’s how we remove many, if not the vast majority, of these confrontations.

125

Just caught the youtube of it. I think most of the time these things are blown out of proportion…but this was inexcusable.

mike

126

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cops and tasers aren’t the problem. Legislators and their laws are. It is the confrontations forced upon law officers and perps because of laws meant to police victimless crimes. Oh sure, people could refuse to join the force. [/quote]

But what does it say of those that do join? They know they will have to enforce laws that put them in these sorts of situations. As I’ve said before, I don’t think cops are bad, just untrustworthy.[quote]

However, who would volunteer the bulk of their adult life catching the rapist, murderer, robber, and con-man? Who would respond to domestic violence calls and other crimes in progress? A lynch mob of private citizens? A vigilante? Bat-man? [/quote]

Imagine instead if what we dealt with was a police force that operated more as a quick reaction force. They can be well equipped and better trained but will be used only to make dangerous arrests when a detective has gathered information or if they were to respond to a call for help. This means that cops could catch all of these people without having to move among and prey upon citizens.

Agreed. Anything that goes on in our great republic is at least partially our own fault. We vote for legislators that enact mala prohibitum laws. Seat belt laws, gambling laws, smoking laws…these would all be voided if we as citizens put the word out that anyone that suggests them would be denied reelection.[quote]

Tasers don’t need to be removed. Police officers don’t need their side arms yanked. Laws need to be struck down, and their duties refocused on solving crimes where an actual victim is involved. That’s how we remove many, if not the vast majority, of these confrontations.[/quote]

Indeed.

mike

127

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

But what does it say of those that do join? They know they will have to enforce laws that put them in these sorts of situations. As I’ve said before, I don’t think cops are bad, just untrustworthy.

Imagine instead if what we dealt with was a police force that operated more as a quick reaction force. They can be well equipped and better trained but will be used only to make dangerous arrests when a detective has gathered information or if they were to respond to a call for help. This means that cops could catch all of these people without having to move among and prey upon citizens.

By far, I respect the police officers of this nation. I do not respect the legislators, and ultimately the citizens, who saddled such a noble proffession with duties so contrary to personal liberty and responsibility.

Agreed. Anything that goes on in our great republic is at least partially our own fault. We vote for legislators that enact mala prohibitum laws. Seat belt laws, gambling laws, smoking laws…these would all be voided if we as citizens put the word out that anyone that suggests them would be denied reelection.

Tasers don’t need to be removed. Police officers don’t need their side arms yanked. Laws need to be struck down, and their duties refocused on solving crimes where an actual victim is involved. That’s how we remove many, if not the vast majority, of these confrontations.

Indeed.

mike[/quote]

I don’t believe I have anything to argue here. I think the type of police force you describe would naturally fall in place if the type of laws we both frown upon were done away with. And, I think many would be suprised over the plunge in true crime numbers if some of our prohibitionesque laws were scrapped.

Again, policing would naturally become narrowly focused on criminals actually depriving another citizen of their rights, in some shape or form (murder, theft). Contact with citizens would, therefore, become much more limited.

Smaller police forces would be the order of the day as a result. And, Police themselves would be in far less danger, which in turn, means the public is in less danger from Police.

128

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I refute the idea that cops needs to be armed to arrest a junkie who is only trying to find some peace. What makes a junkie dangerous is the cop who approaches him to take him to jail for getting high. Most encounters that a cop has are malum prohibitum crimes and until they stop policing these they will continue to be seen as brutes in the eyes of the peaceful.

You’re a smart guy lifty. Why do you let yourself get blinded so easily? What makes a junkie dangerous is the fact that he will break into my home while my family is still there because he’s desperate to get money to feed him habit.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike cops. The fact that they are primarily out there to enforce mala prohibitum laws is the best one. I too agree that cops do more harm than good. But to claim that they do zero good is crazy.

mike[/quote]

The reason why this junkie breaks into your home though is that prohibition makes drugs expensive.

Drugs do not create black markets, cop enforced government rules do.

So who is to blame that this junkie becomes dangerous?

129

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

However, who would volunteer the bulk of their adult life catching the rapist, murderer, robber, and con-man? Who would respond to domestic violence calls and other crimes in progress? A lynch mob of private citizens? A vigilante? Bat-man?

Imagine instead if what we dealt with was a police force that operated more as a quick reaction force. They can be well equipped and better trained but will be used only to make dangerous arrests when a detective has gathered information or if they were to respond to a call for help. This means that cops could catch all of these people without having to move among and prey upon citizens.

mike[/quote]

That is basically the Austrian system.

If the cops think you are dangerous they send the WEGA.

If you are a terrorist or anything remotely like that, they send Cobra teams. Those you do not want to meet.

130

[quote]orion wrote:

The reason why this junkie breaks into your home though is that prohibition makes drugs expensive.

Drugs do not create black markets, cop enforced government rules do.

So who is to blame that this junkie becomes dangerous?

[/quote]

Both. The fedgov certainly has no right to criminalize drugs. They do create a black market and artificially force the price up. But what makes you think that a junkie could afford it if it were cheaper? When a junkie needs a fix and he has no money–because he’s a junkie–he will still break into your home to get that money.

Frankly, the solution to junkies and drug crime is a Remington 870 in every home and a 1911 on every man’s hip.

Decriminalizing drugs is the moral thing to do, but drug crime isn’t going to just disappear because of it. Even so I wonder, if it is decriminalized the price would go down, but it would certainly be heavily taxed, much in the way cigarettes are now. Because of that, gangs and organized crime will still have their fingers all in it. Decriminalization can only lessen drug crime, not eliminate it.

mike

131

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
orion wrote:

The reason why this junkie breaks into your home though is that prohibition makes drugs expensive.

Drugs do not create black markets, cop enforced government rules do.

So who is to blame that this junkie becomes dangerous?

Both. The fedgov certainly has no right to criminalize drugs. They do create a black market and artificially force the price up. But what makes you think that a junkie could afford it if it were cheaper? When a junkie needs a fix and he has no money–because he’s a junkie–he will still break into your home to get that money.

Frankly, the solution to junkies and drug crime is a Remington 870 in every home and a 1911 on every man’s hip.

Decriminalizing drugs is the moral thing to do, but drug crime isn’t going to just disappear because of it. Even so I wonder, if it is decriminalized the price would go down, but it would certainly be heavily taxed, much in the way cigarettes are now. Because of that, gangs and organized crime will still have their fingers all in it. Decriminalization can only lessen drug crime, not eliminate it.

mike[/quote]

We are basically talking about agriculture. That should drop prizes to 1-2 dollars a gramm and below without government interference.

It is true that cigarretes are so heavily taxed that the most smuggled drugs are cigarettes. That is just government creating even more crimes.

Anway, the EU plans, under the guise of trade regulations to make it mandatory to register hunting rifles and shot guns.

So far these are the only weapons I can now buy without having to show any papers and frankly a shotgun should be enough.

Any suggestions what I should get? I cannot buy pumpguns legally though, becuause if I could I´d want this:

Turns out I want a Remington 870 but the short version they sell in Switzerland.

http://www.tmpguns.ch/index.php?page=Schrot_kurz

132

My brother once got tased by an abusive cop. The guy reached for my brother to pat him down, and my brother just reflexively pulled away. Didn’t fight or anything like that, pretty much just flinched when the guy tried to grab him.

So the cop immediately whips out his taser and shocks the living fuck out of my brother. It was one of the worst things I’ve ever seen.

I don’t think the solution is necessarily eliminating tasers- I know I’d be damn glad to have one if I was a cop. What really needs to happen is for police departments to eliminate the bad apples from their ranks.

133

[quote]orion wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I refute the idea that cops needs to be armed to arrest a junkie who is only trying to find some peace. What makes a junkie dangerous is the cop who approaches him to take him to jail for getting high. Most encounters that a cop has are malum prohibitum crimes and until they stop policing these they will continue to be seen as brutes in the eyes of the peaceful.

You’re a smart guy lifty. Why do you let yourself get blinded so easily? What makes a junkie dangerous is the fact that he will break into my home while my family is still there because he’s desperate to get money to feed him habit.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike cops. The fact that they are primarily out there to enforce mala prohibitum laws is the best one. I too agree that cops do more harm than good. But to claim that they do zero good is crazy.

mike

The reason why this junkie breaks into your home though is that prohibition makes drugs expensive.

Drugs do not create black markets, cop enforced government rules do.

So who is to blame that this junkie becomes dangerous?

[/quote]

How would junkies afford heroin if it were legal? They usually cannot hold down jobs.

134

[quote]belligerent wrote:
My brother once got tased by an abusive cop. The guy reached for my brother to pat him down, and my brother just reflexively pulled away. Didn’t fight or anything like that, pretty much just flinched when the guy tried to grab him.

So the cop immediately whips out his taser and shocks the living fuck out of my brother. It was one of the worst things I’ve ever seen.

I don’t think the solution is necessarily eliminating tasers- I know I’d be damn glad to have one if I was a cop. What really needs to happen is for police departments to eliminate the bad apples from their ranks.[/quote]

Exactly. That is why stronger citizen review is required everytime any incident occurs.

135

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
In light of all the recent tasering reports that keep popping up I was wondering what are your thought on these devices.

I have seen some pretty ugly videos of people getting tasered by cops and it seems to me many of these incidents are completely unjustified. Many have been fatal or have caused severe damage. These are supposed to be non-lethal devices. I say disarm the police completely and let them fight crime au natural and maybe they would stop being such vicious brutes to unarmed people.

Disgusting pigs.[/quote]

Let me guess.. a cop slept with your wife and now they are all pigs and deserve to die. No , wait you arrested for committing a crime and instead of blaming yourself you chose to blame cops. Or is it something as simple as receiving a speeding ticket ? 
 As an EMT I have responded to countless situations involving terrible acts and I am blessed that the cops handled such situations. Where I received my training I was fortunate to have had an opportunity to have been tased. It's 5 seconds of hell but afterwards I felt fine. 
Lets think of a scenario for a moment. One involving yourself where you are on the receiving end of a knife wielding man demanding for your wallet. You give him your wallet and he flees the scene. Would you report this to the police ? Or is your hatred blinding you to the point where you put on your "Punisher " t-shirt and handle business your self ?
136

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I refute the idea that cops needs to be armed to arrest a junkie who is only trying to find some peace. What makes a junkie dangerous is the cop who approaches him to take him to jail for getting high. Most encounters that a cop has are malum prohibitum crimes and until they stop policing these they will continue to be seen as brutes in the eyes of the peaceful.

You’re a smart guy lifty. Why do you let yourself get blinded so easily? What makes a junkie dangerous is the fact that he will break into my home while my family is still there because he’s desperate to get money to feed him habit.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike cops. The fact that they are primarily out there to enforce mala prohibitum laws is the best one. I too agree that cops do more harm than good. But to claim that they do zero good is crazy.

mike

The reason why this junkie breaks into your home though is that prohibition makes drugs expensive.

Drugs do not create black markets, cop enforced government rules do.

So who is to blame that this junkie becomes dangerous?

How would junkies afford heroin if it were legal? They usually cannot hold down jobs. [/quote]

With legal prostitution of course.

Fugly junkies could finance their now ass-cheap drugs addiction with a low paying job or solely through welfare (still a lot cheaper for the majority).

137

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

How would junkies afford heroin if it were legal? They usually cannot hold down jobs. [/quote]

You are a very closed minded individual. You think all junkies fit the profile of a street urchin? My father-in-law was a junkie for 30 years and managed to keep a job in a steel-mill.

138

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I refute the idea that cops needs to be armed to arrest a junkie who is only trying to find some peace. What makes a junkie dangerous is the cop who approaches him to take him to jail for getting high. Most encounters that a cop has are malum prohibitum crimes and until they stop policing these they will continue to be seen as brutes in the eyes of the peaceful.

You’re a smart guy lifty. Why do you let yourself get blinded so easily? What makes a junkie dangerous is the fact that he will break into my home while my family is still there because he’s desperate to get money to feed him habit.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike cops. The fact that they are primarily out there to enforce mala prohibitum laws is the best one. I too agree that cops do more harm than good. But to claim that they do zero good is crazy.

mike

The reason why this junkie breaks into your home though is that prohibition makes drugs expensive.

Drugs do not create black markets, cop enforced government rules do.

So who is to blame that this junkie becomes dangerous?

How would junkies afford heroin if it were legal? They usually cannot hold down jobs. [/quote]

Begging-

Not the best of all solution but non-violent.

At a cost of 2-3 $ a gramm that takes minutes. Plus, running little errands or begging for your fix is easier than robbing and stealing and addicts want their fix fast.

PLus, most cocain and heroin users do have jobs and you´d never know that they are using.

The treatment of addicts resembles in one important aspect the treatment of Jews by the Nazis.

The Nazis claimed that Jews were greedy and filthy and a danger for their neighbours.

Than they put them in Ghettos were they were forced to barter, under incredible sanitary conditions and THEN used that footage to show that their propaganda had been right all along.

Today addicts get sick and die because their product is laced and because the drugs are incredibly expensive they commit crimes to buy them.

That is the direct result of drug prohibition though and not of drug abuse.

These users of hard drug that are sick and criminal, who still are the minority of drug users, even when it comes to hard drugs, then represent “the junkie” in the public mind.

These people you have in mind are not drug victims, they are state policy victims.

139

I’m just sayin’…

“The intensification of armaments, the increase of police forces - are all essential for the completion of the aforementioned plans. What we have to get at is that there should be in all the States of the world, besides ourselves, only the masses of the proletariat, a few millionaires devoted to our interests, police and soldiers…”
–PROTOCOL No. 7

[i]"In the GOY societies, in which we have planted and deeply rooted discord and protestantism, the only possible way of restoring order is to employ merciless measures that prove the direct force of authority: no regard must be paid to the victims who fall, they suffer for the well-being of the future…

…WE DEMAND SUBMISSION – When comes the time of our overt rule, the time to manifest its blessing, we shall remake all legislatures, all our laws will be brief, plain, stable, without any kind of interpretations, so that anyone will be in a position to know them perfectly. The main feature which will run right through them is submission to orders, and this principle will be carried to a grandiose height.

Every abuse will then disappear in consequence of the responsibility of all down to the lowest unit before the higher authority of the representative of power. Abuses of power subordinate to this last instance will be so mercilessly punished that none will be found anxious to try experiments with their own powers. We shall follow up jealously every action of the administration on which depends the smooth running of the machinery of the State, for slackness in this produces slackness everywhere; not a single case of illegality or abuse of power will be left without exemplary punishment…

…OUR GOVERNMENT WILL HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF A PATRIARCHAL PATERNAL GUARDIANSHIP ON THE PART OF OUR RULER. Our own nation and our subjects will discern in his person a father caring for their every need, their every act, their every interrelation as subjects one with another, as well as their relations to the ruler.

They will then be so thoroughly imbued with the thought that it is impossible for them to dispense with this wardship and guidance, if they wish to live in peace and quiet, THAT THEY WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THE AUTOCRACY OF OUR RULER WITH A DEVOTION BORDERING ON “APOTHEOSIS,” especially when they are convinced that those whom we set up do not put their own in place of authority, but only blindly execute his dictates.

They will be rejoiced that we have regulated everything in their lives as is done by wise parents who desire to train children in the cause of duty and submission. For the peoples of the world in regard to the secrets of our polity are ever through the ages only children under age, precisely as are also their governments."[/i]
–PROTOCOL No. 15

What a coinidence.

140


Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police was founded in 1915

The open eye is the eye of vigilance ever looking for danger and protecting all those under its care while they sleep or while awake. The clasped hands denote friendship. The hand of friendship is always extended to those in need of comfort.

The circle surrounding the star midway indicates their never ending efforts to promote the welfare and advancement of this order. Within the half circle over the centerpiece is the motto, “Jus, Fides, Libertatum” which translated means “Law Is a Safeguard of Freedom.”
http://www.fop.net/about/history/star.shtml

“The word “freedom,” which can be interpreted in various ways, is defined by us as follows – Freedom is the right to do what which the law allows. This interpretation of the word will at the proper time be of service to us, because all freedom will thus be in our hands, since the laws will abolish or create only that which is desirable for us according to the aforesaid program…”
–PROTOCOL No. 12 (year 1903)

[i]"Meantime, however, until we come into our kingdom, we shall act in the contrary way: we shall create and multiply free masonic lodges in all the countries of the world, absorb into them all who may become or who are prominent in public activity, for these lodges we shall find our principal intelligence office and means of influence. All these lodges we shall bring under one central administration, known to us alone and to all others absolutely unknown, which will be composed of our learned elders. The lodges will have their representatives who will serve to screen the above-mentioned administration of MASONRY and from whom will issue the watchword and program.

In these lodges we shall tie together the knot which binds together all revolutionary and liberal elements. Their composition will be made up of all strata of society. The most secret political plots will be known to us and fall under our guiding hands on the very day of their conception. AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THESE LODGES WILL BE ALMOST ALL THE AGENTS OF INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL POLICE since their service is for us irreplaceable in the respect that the police is in a position not only to use its own particular measures with the insubordinate, but also to screen our activities and provide pretexts for discontents, ET CETERA."[/i]
–PROTOCOL No. 15 (year 1903)