Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I don't need no warrant, motherf*****

Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2011 9:13:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Gotta love that police pride. "We're gonna stand behind our officer." It's highly unusual, I would imagine, that we'd get such a candid report from an officer's partner, to be able to actually get this type of things exposed. Logically, the vast majority of these types of incidents are not so swiftly brought into the public spotlight.
kfc
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2011 9:35:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This type of thing has been happening more and more lately, the 4th Amendment is essentially dead at this point. A month or so ago there was another guy in Arizona who was killed by SWAT on suspicion he might possibly have drugs.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2011 9:43:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
freaking ridiculous
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2011 12:55:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well, if true, I would hope that the officer would be sodomized with a hot poker for all eternity.

But since no one here has all the facts yet, I say let's just go with our gut on this and sodomize him anyway.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2011 1:25:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/17/2011 12:55:22 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Well, if true, I would hope that the officer would be sodomized with a hot poker for all eternity.

But since no one here has all the facts yet, I say let's just go with our gut on this and sodomize him anyway.

You're right, the facts aren't all in... but it's difficult to even imagine how this guy could be innocent. There were two witnesses that remained alive after the assault, and they aren't sticking up for him. If they are acting conspiratorially, then this guy would have spoken up right away. Furthermore, if his lawyer somehow pulls a trick out of his sleeve, then there will be a repeat of the Rodney King riots. This guy is going to burn and there isn't a single way out of it for him short of suicide.
kfc
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 9:20:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Someone should make a TV series, opposite "Cops," called "Pigs." They should steal the theme music and change it to "bad cops bad cops, whatcha gonna do..."
kfc
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 9:04:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 9:20:37 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Someone should make a TV series, opposite "Cops," called "Pigs." They should steal the theme music and change it to "bad cops bad cops, whatcha gonna do..."

Werd. You know what though? I can't decide if public or private police are the better option. Sure I'm an anarchist and I don't like the idea of government cops having a monopoly on force, but is an agency with a similar monopoly because they have more resources than their competitors really any better? I'm working on it.
President of DDO
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 9:09:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 9:04:02 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 6/19/2011 9:20:37 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Someone should make a TV series, opposite "Cops," called "Pigs." They should steal the theme music and change it to "bad cops bad cops, whatcha gonna do..."

Werd. You know what though? I can't decide if public or private police are the better option. Sure I'm an anarchist and I don't like the idea of government cops having a monopoly on force, but is an agency with a similar monopoly because they have more resources than their competitors really any better? I'm working on it.

No matter what, public or private, someone is gonna abuse it. I don't know what it is about cops that give them the idea that they are God. I used to think the cops that stopped me were racists, but then I had a bad experience with a black cop who acted the same way. IDK.
kfc
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 9:14:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 9:04:02 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 6/19/2011 9:20:37 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Someone should make a TV series, opposite "Cops," called "Pigs." They should steal the theme music and change it to "bad cops bad cops, whatcha gonna do..."

Werd. You know what though? I can't decide if public or private police are the better option. Sure I'm an anarchist and I don't like the idea of government cops having a monopoly on force, but is an agency with a similar monopoly because they have more resources than their competitors really any better? I'm working on it.

Well, that agency in your example doesn't really have a monopoly--they're bigger than their competitors, but they still have competitors. Plus, the function of police is (or, rather, should be) to protect private property--if someone didn't like a police firm, they wouldn't hire that firm to protect their property, or could just not go on the property of someone else who hired that firm (like, if a store hired a police firm that was abusive). So there'd be a much greater incentive for police to behave--people don't want abusive police on their own property, nor do stores or other properties open to the public want abusive police driving customers away.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 9:16:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 9:04:02 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 6/19/2011 9:20:37 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Someone should make a TV series, opposite "Cops," called "Pigs." They should steal the theme music and change it to "bad cops bad cops, whatcha gonna do..."

Werd. You know what though? I can't decide if public or private police are the better option. Sure I'm an anarchist and I don't like the idea of government cops having a monopoly on force, but is an agency with a similar monopoly because they have more resources than their competitors really any better? I'm working on it.

I think that the issue would ultimately come down to accountability. I don't know the specifics of your ideology, but I see the main benefit of an ancap legal system is that everyone is equally accountable for their actions. There is no difference in the amount of force people different are allowed to use. So if a security agent comes into someone's house, beats him, shoots his dog, and shoots him, he is subject to the same punishment that I would be if I did that. The security agency and the court could be in bed, but at least it's not institutionalized. That's a benefit entirely separate from the monopoly issue.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 9:16:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Werd. You know what though? I can't decide if public or private police are the better option. Sure I'm an anarchist and I don't like the idea of government cops having a monopoly on force, but is an agency with a similar monopoly because they have more resources than their competitors really any better? I'm working on it.

No matter what, public or private, someone is gonna abuse it. I don't know what it is about cops that give them the idea that they are God. I used to think the cops that stopped me were racists, but then I had a bad experience with a black cop who acted the same way. IDK.:

The way a police force is funded bears no reflection on the quality of he cops. It's literally as simple as some people are crazy @ssholes who have no business in law enforcement, and some aren't. Agencies spend a lot of money trying to keep the bad one's out, but it's a statistical inevitability that some slip in anyway.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 9:16:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 9:14:16 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Well, that agency in your example doesn't really have a monopoly--they're bigger than their competitors, but they still have competitors.

Oh give me a break.

More stuff about why lf capitalism is perfect and everybody would act perfectly under laissez faire cap...

Werd.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 9:19:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 9:16:11 PM, Grape wrote:
I see the main benefit of an ancap legal system is that everyone is equally accountable for their actions.

In theory. In practice that may mean nothing... just like state police.

There is no difference in the amount of force people different are allowed to use. So if a security agent comes into someone's house, beats him, shoots his dog, and shoots him, he is subject to the same punishment that I would be if I did that.

Same thing ^ I agree with koopin. People are going to abuse it no matter what. I'm wondering which has the less potential for abuse.

The security agency and the court could be in bed, but at least it's not institutionalized. That's a benefit entirely separate from the monopoly issue.

I see pros and cons to both (mostly cons). Still working on it like I said.
President of DDO
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 9:21:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 9:16:56 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 6/19/2011 9:14:16 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Well, that agency in your example doesn't really have a monopoly--they're bigger than their competitors, but they still have competitors.

Oh give me a break.

More stuff about why lf capitalism is perfect and everybody would act perfectly under laissez faire cap...

Werd.

That's obviously not what my argument was. I said private police have more incentives to behave than public police. There will always be bad people--but there's certainly fewer bad people if there are strong disincentives to such behavior, rather than no disincentives.

Public police have no incentive to be good, and they have plenty of incentives to abuse their power. If the government police suck, they still get just as much tax money. And if they're abusive, they often can get more money (the drug war for example--police get more money to enforce more drug laws. Or asset forfeiture laws, where the police get to keep seized property, giving them a huge incentive to seize more property, even from innocent people, which is why 80% of asset forfeitures are from people not even charged with a crime)
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 9:30:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 9:21:27 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
That's obviously not what my argument was. I said private police have more incentives to behave than public police.

This makes the problematic presumption that only well behaved police would be paid well. Bill Gates could out-pay one police force over another that had 100,000 other paying members. I remain unconvinced that tyranny of the rich > tyranny of the majority.

There will always be bad people--but there's certainly fewer bad people if there are strong disincentives to such behavior, rather than no disincentives.

See above. Also, people are more inclined to be bad if they have monetary incentives to do so.

Public police have no incentive to be good, and they have plenty of incentives to abuse their power. If the government police suck, they still get just as much tax money.

In theory, they do have incentive to be good. The problem is that theory and reality are vastly different. In theory bad cops would be kicked off the force. This would be enforced by active local watchdogs. It doesn't work like that in reality. Same with tax money.

And if they're abusive, they often can get more money (the drug war for example--police get more money to enforce more drug laws. Or asset forfeiture laws, where the police get to keep seized property, giving them a huge incentive to seize more property, even from innocent people, which is why 80% of asset forfeitures are from people not even charged with a crime)

I agree this is definitely a problem with state police. I'm not denying that; I fuggin hate state police. I'm just not willing to turn a blind eye to the obvious problems an-cap police present as well.
President of DDO
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 9:46:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 9:30:48 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 6/19/2011 9:21:27 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
That's obviously not what my argument was. I said private police have more incentives to behave than public police.

This makes the problematic presumption that only well behaved police would be paid well. Bill Gates could out-pay one police force over another that had 100,000 other paying members. I remain unconvinced that tyranny of the rich > tyranny of the majority.
It does not make that assumption--it only makes the assumption that well behaved police have a better chance of being preferred to poorly behaved ones in a market than in a government monopoly.

There will always be bad people--but there's certainly fewer bad people if there are strong disincentives to such behavior, rather than no disincentives.

See above. Also, people are more inclined to be bad if they have monetary incentives to do so.
Yes, my point is that there exist more of these incentives in a government system than in a market system.

Public police have no incentive to be good, and they have plenty of incentives to abuse their power. If the government police suck, they still get just as much tax money.

In theory, they do have incentive to be good. The problem is that theory and reality are vastly different. In theory bad cops would be kicked off the force. This would be enforced by active local watchdogs. It doesn't work like that in reality. Same with tax money.
No, that is not true in theory, and there is no difference between correct theories and reality. If the theory is that bad police will be kicked off the government police force, then the theory is wrong. There's no incentive for the government to kick off bad cops, so they don't.

And if they're abusive, they often can get more money (the drug war for example--police get more money to enforce more drug laws. Or asset forfeiture laws, where the police get to keep seized property, giving them a huge incentive to seize more property, even from innocent people, which is why 80% of asset forfeitures are from people not even charged with a crime)

I agree this is definitely a problem with state police. I'm not denying that; I fuggin hate state police. I'm just not willing to turn a blind eye to the obvious problems an-cap police present as well.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2011 7:27:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
private police have more incentives to behave than public police. There will always be bad people--but there's certainly fewer bad people if there are strong disincentives to such behavior, rather than no disincentives.:

They both have monetary incentives. If either does wrong, both suffer consequences in the form of prosecution which is a loss of money and freedom.

Public police have no incentive to be good, and they have plenty of incentives to abuse their power. If the government police suck, they still get just as much tax money. And if they're abusive, they often can get more money (the drug war for example--police get more money to enforce more drug laws. Or asset forfeiture laws, where the police get to keep seized property, giving them a huge incentive to seize more property, even from innocent people, which is why 80% of asset forfeitures are from people not even charged with a crime):

The shoe often fits on the other foot. Take Blackwater as a perfect example. Blackwater had total immunity to do whatever they wanted. Hell, they had every monetary incentive to be as brutal as humanly possible to instill fear. They didn't have to follow military law that conventional units did, nor did they have any compelling reason to follow Iraqi law. They were a private paramilitary force that did whatever they wanted. Special operations units within the US military often went to court martial and were convicted and sentenced, whereas Blackwater fell through the cracks.

How something is funded, be it private or public, bears no reflection on the law and who follows it. An abuse of power is an abuse of power regardless of the perpetrator.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2011 7:29:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
lol guize if we'd have corporations people would be pulled over for going 1 mile over the limit.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2011 10:00:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/20/2011 7:27:14 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
private police have more incentives to behave than public police. There will always be bad people--but there's certainly fewer bad people if there are strong disincentives to such behavior, rather than no disincentives.:

They both have monetary incentives. If either does wrong, both suffer consequences in the form of prosecution which is a loss of money and freedom.
Public police forces have no incentive to prosecute their own, and often don't, even in the clearest cases of abuse http://lewrockwell.com... If the public police force doesn't prosecute bad police, what happens to them? Nothing.

Public police have no incentive to be good, and they have plenty of incentives to abuse their power. If the government police suck, they still get just as much tax money. And if they're abusive, they often can get more money (the drug war for example--police get more money to enforce more drug laws. Or asset forfeiture laws, where the police get to keep seized property, giving them a huge incentive to seize more property, even from innocent people, which is why 80% of asset forfeitures are from people not even charged with a crime):

The shoe often fits on the other foot. Take Blackwater as a perfect example. Blackwater had total immunity to do whatever they wanted. Hell, they had every monetary incentive to be as brutal as humanly possible to instill fear. They didn't have to follow military law that conventional units did, nor did they have any compelling reason to follow Iraqi law. They were a private paramilitary force that did whatever they wanted. Special operations units within the US military often went to court martial and were convicted and sentenced, whereas Blackwater fell through the cracks.
Blackwater isn't privately funded, it's funded by the American government. Where the funding comes from determines what incentives are--if it comes from the government, they have the incentives of a public program. The only way an organization can really count as "private" is if they are funded voluntarily--being nominally private by funded by taxpayer dollars doesn't count.
How something is funded, be it private or public, bears no reflection on the law and who follows it. An abuse of power is an abuse of power regardless of the perpetrator.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2011 10:22:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 9:46:52 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
It does not make that assumption--it only makes the assumption that well behaved police have a better chance of being preferred to poorly behaved ones in a market than in a government monopoly.

Exactly. You're presuming that since more people would prefer "well behaved" police, that they will be the ones in business as opposed to not in business. However you didn't even try to argue with the fact that Bill Gates could employ an entire police force and probably pay them more than hundreds of other thousands of members employing another police force. Rich people can employ police whether they're good or bad, and the richer you are, the more power you have in that way despite what's best for everybody else.

Yes, my point is that there exist more of these incentives in a government system than in a market system.

I disagree. So yeah.

No, that is not true in theory, and there is no difference between correct theories and reality.

You can't be serious.
President of DDO
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2011 4:54:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Private police would not be able to police person A and also try to derive profits from person A. Protecting person B could derive profits from person B, but the whole notion of a free market being effective depends upon being able to increase the amount of people that are able to be serviced. So we have a pretty bad conflict of interests, here, because a police force's efficacy depends on it arresting people. And I suppose we're also supposed to buy a judge, as well as a prison to send them to? I'm not even going to get into the conflict of interests of competing firms, and how they'd possibly coordinate, because there are just so many horrific possibilities without even going there.

When I complain about police, I complain about them as an institution that is already about as good as its going to get. I wonder what a cop (a good one) would have to say about the idea of private police forces.
kfc
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 3:10:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/15/2011 9:13:22 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:


Gotta love that police pride. "We're gonna stand behind our officer." It's highly unusual, I would imagine, that we'd get such a candid report from an officer's partner, to be able to actually get this type of things exposed. Logically, the vast majority of these types of incidents are not so swiftly brought into the public spotlight.

Rob...if these incidents are not brought to light...how do you know about them?

This is all ignoring the fact that the guy has a point. Due process and investigative procedure are all in place for a reason. The guy the chairman of the Police Officer's Union, of course he's going to side with the Officer in question and he would do so even if the Officer in question had not only shot the family dog, but the family cat, goldfish, put a round into Grandma and then urinated into the urn that contains great grandma.

Besides which, while I don't know if the Officer in question was at fault or not, the Officer did have a point, since he was given permission by the homeowner (That would be the mother) to enter, then no, he did not need a warrant. Likewise I find the shooting of the dog suspicious, the lack of context and detail given by the reporter is strange, it implies either that a trained policeman opted to point the gun at a non-target rather than a target and kill it, or that at some point the officer's aim was swayed by something else.

Chances are the guy really is a murdering pile of horse sh*t, but there's no reason to blow that out of proportion, since it's A: really challenging and B: Kind of nonsensical. I know you hate the cops, rob, but at the end of the day you're only going to be able to justify that hate if you can prove they're all as bad as you say...and you can't, frankly.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 3:34:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Rob...if these incidents are not brought to light...how do you know about them?

What's the point of this statement?

This is all ignoring the fact that the guy has a point. Due process and investigative procedure are all in place for a reason. The guy the chairman of the Police Officer's Union, of course he's going to side with the Officer in question and he would do so even if the Officer in question had not only shot the family dog, but the family cat, goldfish, put a round into Grandma and then urinated into the urn that contains great grandma.

Sure. That means we need people like us who are going to side against the police senselessly, to offset the senseless defense they get from the moustached gustapo crowd. Either things get done sensibly, or else you get two senseless competing sides.

Besides which, while I don't know if the Officer in question was at fault or not, the Officer did have a point, since he was given permission by the homeowner (That would be the mother) to enter, then no, he did not need a warrant.

To kill him?

Likewise I find the shooting of the dog suspicious, the lack of context and detail given by the reporter is strange, it implies either that a trained policeman opted to point the gun at a non-target rather than a target and kill it, or that at some point the officer's aim was swayed by something else.

I can't even think of a hypothetical situation that would justfiy this.

Chances are the guy really is a murdering pile of horse sh*t,

Because he was shot by a bad cop?

but there's no reason to blow that out of proportion, since it's A: really challenging and B: Kind of nonsensical. I know you hate the cops, rob, but at the end of the day you're only going to be able to justify that hate if you can prove they're all as bad as you say...and you can't, frankly.

I don't need no proof, mutherfucker. All I need is to do everything I can to bring questionable circumstances to light, to offset the automatic protection they get from their agencies. That's how it works.
kfc
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 3:58:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/1/2011 3:34:54 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:


What's the point of this statement?

You claim "a majority of incidents like this never come to light" and yet the fact that you're able to make that claim immediatly contradicts the clam itself. Thou art not speaking in riddles, thou art speaking in black holes and paradoxes.

Rob said:
Sure. That means we need people like us who are going to side against the police senselessly, to offset the senseless defense they get from the moustached gustapo crowd. Either things get done sensibly, or else you get two senseless competing sides.

Ignoring for a second the fact that it's his job to defend the Officer, since he's Chairman of the Police Officer's Union, namely the group that ensures that all cops who are accused of anything get a fair bash, I count five assumptions n that paragraph.

Rob said:
To kill him?

Don't be coy. The centrepiece of your argument is the cop's claim to not need a warrant to enter. The cop in question did not because he'd been given permission to enter by the homeowner.

Rob said:
I can't even think of a hypothetical situation that would justfiy this.

I could be cruel and levee that as proof of your inability to consider the man's innocence in any context but I think it would be more constructive to just say "Of course you can't sweetie" and just move on.

Rob said:
Because he was shot by a bad cop?

Actually I was referring to the cop himself in that part. Pay attention now.

Rob said:
I don't need no proof, mutherfucker. All I need is to do everything I can to bring questionable circumstances to light, to offset the automatic protection they get from their agencies. That's how it works.

"I don't need no proof"

Wow, I'm going to dip into my remaining faith in humanity and assume the double negative is deliberate. Having said that, their UNIONS not agencies, are ensuring they get a fair trial. I'm sure you'd want a fair trial if accused of something, right?

The accuser accuses. The cop (or anyone else for that matter) is then allowed to defend themselves The Union is there to guarantee that opportunity and to work against the employer if that opportunity is not forthcoming. Not an agency, not even a district or department, the man was part of an organisation whose job it is to ensure that regardless of the allegation, everyone gets a chance to defend themselves.

Because, you know, not being givena chance to defend yourself would be like living under the Gestapo, a name you seem to throw about without truly appreciating it's weight. Mutherfucker.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2011 12:04:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/1/2011 3:58:33 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 7/1/2011 3:34:54 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:


What's the point of this statement?

You claim "a majority of incidents like this never come to light" and yet the fact that you're able to make that claim immediatly contradicts the clam itself. Thou art not speaking in riddles, thou art speaking in black holes and paradoxes.

Most abuses by officers aren't going to be snitched out immediately by their partners; this was a peculiar incident indeed. Either there won't be another officer around to report it or both officers will be in on it; I would imagine the rate of occurences of one officer immediately turning on the other is quite low. Most cops aren't stupid enough to do things when they know they're going to get caught. I don't follow your logic as to why my pointing out that most instances of abuse won't be reported is an automatic self-contradiction.

Rob said:
Sure. That means we need people like us who are going to side against the police senselessly, to offset the senseless defense they get from the moustached gustapo crowd. Either things get done sensibly, or else you get two senseless competing sides.

Ignoring for a second the fact that it's his job to defend the Officer, since he's Chairman of the Police Officer's Union, namely the group that ensures that all cops who are accused of anything get a fair bash, I count five assumptions n that paragraph.

The gentleman in the video represents the police department to the public. The public (me) watches this video and sees that the police department is automatically defending its own, despite the very low chance of any innocence of the officer. Does the department actually have an internal investigations unit that makes sure justice is served to officers who abuse the public? I don't know... there will always be doubt as to whether officers get away with too much or are balanced out by checks and balances within the department to prevent abuses. But this gives the public a very bad perception of the process; it makes it look like cops are just going to stick up for cops no matter what.

This is a problem. Unless checks and balances can be effective within the department, there's little chance outside forces can be relied on to create justice. Police are the experts and we need police to police the police from inside if there's going to be any chance of justice. So when I, John Q. Public, see the mustached policeman vowing to stick up for his officer before he even hears the evidence, I get very unnerved.

Rob said:
To kill him?

Don't be coy. The centrepiece of your argument is the cop's claim to not need a warrant to enter. The cop in question did not because he'd been given permission to enter by the homeowner.

The centerpiece is a dead man at the hands of a cop who was acting in anger with little logic to his methods, as described by his partner.

Rob said:
I can't even think of a hypothetical situation that would justfiy this.

I could be cruel and levee that as proof of your inability to consider the man's innocence in any context but I think it would be more constructive to just say "Of course you can't sweetie" and just move on.

Well then I'll try, just for you. OK, perhaps the officer's partner was framing the officer in a conspiratorial way, and paid off the kid's mom to go along with the story. What's the likelihood of that? Oh, and on top of that, the officer in question didn't even mention to anyone before the story broke that he's being set up... That's about a one in a billion chance. I can't even think of any other scenario without becoming incredibly ridiculous.

Rob said:
Because he was shot by a bad cop?

Actually I was referring to the cop himself in that part. Pay attention now.

Rob said:
I don't need no proof, mutherfucker. All I need is to do everything I can to bring questionable circumstances to light, to offset the automatic protection they get from their agencies. That's how it works.

"I don't need no proof"

Wow, I'm going to dip into my remaining faith in humanity and assume the double negative is deliberate. Having said that, their UNIONS not agencies, are ensuring they get a fair trial. I'm sure you'd want a fair trial if accused of something, right?

Yes, the double-negative was deliberate. The clue was the title to the thread.

You position your response as if the cop wouldn't get a fair trial without the union to protect him; that seems exaggerated. Everyone gets access to legal counsel in the U.S. whether they can pay for it or not. I am more concerned about the situation in the department before, during, and immediately after such incidents occur, before lawyers even get a chance to get involved. The police department should be conducting an objective investigation to bring into that courtroom to be used as evidence, not responding reflexively and sticking up for the cop no matter what. I'll be the first to admit that there's only so far that we can reasonably expect a department to be able to handle itself in a truly fair way, simply because of the nature of the institution to maintain its own integrity (as well as the fact that officers are experts in their fields and are always going to have the edge over whoever they deal with that are not experts in police procedures); after all, a bad cop brings down the P.R. of the entire department.

The accuser accuses. The cop (or anyone else for that matter) is then allowed to defend themselves The Union is there to guarantee that opportunity and to work against the employer if that opportunity is not forthcoming. Not an agency, not even a district or department, the man was part of an organisation whose job it is to ensure that regardless of the allegation, everyone gets a chance to defend themselves.

Police can defend themselves without unions. Why are you creating this false dichotomy?

Because, you know, not being givena chance to defend yourself would be like living under the Gestapo, a name you seem to throw about without truly appreciating it's weight. Mutherfucker.

Ouch (scorch).

I don't think there is going to be a union coming to the aid of the victim.
kfc
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2011 10:42:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Rob said:
Most abuses by officers aren't going to be snitched out immediately by their partners; this was a peculiar incident indeed. Either there won't be another officer around to report it or both officers will be in on it; I would imagine the rate of occurences of one officer immediately turning on the other is quite low. Most cops aren't stupid enough to do things when they know they're going to get caught. I don't follow your logic as to why my pointing out that most instances of abuse won't be reported is an automatic self-contradiction.

A strawman and a lie. You do follow, Rob. The idea of a cop "not turning on his partner" was never the issue. You said, and I quote. "Logically, the vast majority of these types of incidents are not so swiftly brought into the public spotlight." The fact that his partner cofronted him about it is utterly irrelevant.

In fact, even if it was relevant, that doesn't change the fact that you're presuming that a theoretical, keyword right there, majority of incidents of cops alledgedly shooting and killing an unarmed man don't come to light when you and I both know that news stations across America would jump on police brutality stories like a stripper jumps at a millionaire.

Rob said:
The gentleman in the video represents the police department to the public.

The gentleman in the video does not, actually. The spokesperson in the press reliease represents the police department to the public, the gentleman in the video represents all police officer's everywhere in the instance that they are accused of anything from littering to murder. The news anchor even announces him as "Chairman of the Police Officer's Union"

Seriously, look up what a Union does. Like right now. This point is becoming boring.

he public (me) watches this video and sees that the police department is automatically defending its own, despite the very low chance of any innocence of the officer.

Rob said
he public (me) watches this video and sees that the police department is automatically defending its own, despite the very low chance of any innocence of the officer.

According to one side of the story.

But yeah, you know what? Screw due process and the notion of innocence until proven guilt! He...probably did it, so let's just assume he did, yeah!

and while we're at it, the earth is flat, Obama is a Kenyan Muslim terrorist who smokes and sodomises puppies, Odin nailed Jesus to a cross, and there are monsters under my little sister's bed you insufferable moron.

Rob said:
Does the department actually have an internal investigations unit that makes sure justice is served to officers who abuse the public?

Yes, it's called Internal Affairs, it's job is literally nothing other than to investiate allegations of any and all kinds against Police Officers, both internally and externally.

Rob said:
But this gives the public a very bad perception of the process; it makes it look like cops are just going to stick up for cops no matter what.

You are joking.

You're not joking.

Jesus christ.

Once again. Due process. Innocence until proven guilt. Plus, cameraderie in the force is nothing new, why does this surprise you?

Rob said:
This is a problem. Unless checks and balances can be effective within the department, there's little chance outside forces can be relied on to create justice.

You're assuming that the checks and balances are ineffective when you've already disregarded the possibility that they exist, you're also assuming they haven't worked at point in time when they have only just started doing their job.

You're like a guy who takes an ice cube from the freezer, places it on a table and says "Well clearly ice doesn't melt, I've stood here for five whole seconds and this ice hasn't melted"

Rob said:
Police are the experts and we need police to police the police from inside if there's going to be any chance of justice. So when I, John Q. Public, see the mustached policeman vowing to stick up for his officer before he even hears the evidence, I get very unnerved.

I take it you don't have a union where you work.

Rob said:
The centerpiece is a dead man at the hands of a cop who was acting in anger with little logic to his methods, as described by his partner.

Strawman. You name the thread after the quote. It's implications without the context around it summarise your opinion of what cops are, you refuse to acknowledge that the quote itself is actually at least partially justified.

A man is dead, yes, there is nothing to be done about that. You, however, focus not on the death, but on the quote.

So, again, don't be coy and answer for my point or say nothing at all.

Rob said:
Well then I'll try, just for you. OK, perhaps the officer's partner was framing the officer in a conspiratorial way, and paid off the kid's mom to go along with the story. What's the likelihood of that? Oh, and on top of that, the officer in question didn't even mention to anyone before the story broke that he's being set up... That's about a one in a billion chance. I can't even think of any other scenario without becoming incredibly ridiculous.

Try this instead, the murdered attempted to bat away the gun, the officer reflexively fired, the bullet struck the dog, the man, enraged at the death of his dog, became even more violent, and in a split-second decision, the officer shot him.

You seem to be fond of conspiracies, actually, looking at some of your posts here.

Remember to wear your foil hat now, I hear brain juices are delicious.

Rob said:
Yes, the double-negative was deliberate. The clue was the title to the thread.

and yet in the officer's case, the double negative was accidental, which I'm fairly sure means that that officer has outsmarted you.

Rob said:
You position your response as if the cop wouldn't get a fair trial without the union to protect him; that seems exaggerated

You know, in the second world war, Germany developed a lot of time and manpower into developing various types of lethal gas. Gas that could kill in agonising and brutal ways. Yet Germany never dropped a single gas bomb onto English soil during the Blirzkrieg. Do you know why? Because Germany knew just how anal the British government had been about giving absolutely everyone a gas mask.

Sometimes the presence of a repellant to the alternative is enough for the alternative to never be considered. For example, the presence of a union to ensure the copper gets a fair trial, since working for Officer's rights, including the right to a fair trial, is literally the Union's job and sole purpose.

Once again, I assume you've never had a union. Or you're lucky enough to work somewhere that respects your rights as an employee.

Rob said:
Everyone gets access to legal counsel in the U.S. whether they can pay for it or not.

That's not always relevant, and legal counsel isn't the same as ensuring that one person or another person gets a fair and proper investigation before charges are laid.

Rob said:
he police department should be conducting an objective investigation to bring into that courtroom to be used as evidence, not responding reflexively and sticking up for the cop no matter what.

Again, it's his job, due process, innocence until proven guilt.

Rob said:
Police can defend themselves without unions. Why are you creating this false dichotomy?

Internal Affairs have authority that goes above and beyond the Officer's ability to defend from. The Union ensures that Internal Affairs does not abuse that authority. It's called regulatory oversight.

Rob said:
I don't think there is going to be a union coming to the aid of the victim.

There already is, the guy being interviewed in the video? Listen closely, he's the police officer's union chairman. He pledged his support, i's already happening, and you are an idiot.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2011 10:54:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 9:04:02 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 6/19/2011 9:20:37 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Someone should make a TV series, opposite "Cops," called "Pigs." They should steal the theme music and change it to "bad cops bad cops, whatcha gonna do..."

Werd. You know what though? I can't decide if public or private police are the better option. Sure I'm an anarchist and I don't like the idea of government cops having a monopoly on force, but is an agency with a similar monopoly because they have more resources than their competitors really any better? I'm working on it.

I am glad you can now admit that you can't make even a basic case for anarchy.

*dons protective gear*
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.